Bridging The Gap

To Come Out or to Not Come Out .... that is the question

2012-01-27T18:31:00.003-05:00

It has often been my contention that there are things that I, as a mainly straight person, can say in this conversation that would be difficult for my LGBT brothers and sisters to say. And there are things that they can say that I have no business saying. When we stand side-by-side in solidarity and speak with one voice, our unity has the most potential for impact.

This particular question, “To come out or not to come out” seems to be on the border. There are some things I can perhaps contribute to this part of the conversation, but I am also keenly aware that I need to be careful to not say more than I should. I don’t know what it is like to come out and honestly share about the reality of experiencing same-sex attraction. But I have talked with hundreds of folks about their experience with deciding to come out and then actually doing it. And I’ve heard enough stories to know that there are many different experiences as people navigate these questions. So I hope that sharing some of my thoughts will be helpful – and I do so with this request: please add your insights and experiences to the conversation. This post is only meant to be a catalyst to interacting with this decision-making process. The more you contribute – the richer the conversation will be and the more we will all be able to learn from one another.

As a Canadian child growing up in a fairly sheltered Christian community, I had no idea who Harvey Milk was. I’d never heard his speech encouraging all gay people to come out as a way of once and for all destroying the assumptions, stereotypes, and inuendos about gay people. And when I first worked for New Direction, the idea of coming out was clouded over by the paradigm that suggested that if a person acknowledged their same-sex attraction it gave that reality extra power in your life. This would be similar to those Christians discouraging anyone to say they are an alcoholic lest that be an open door to draw you into further bondage to alcohol. Such a view elevates the power of our words and calls us to high levels of vigilance and avoidance.

But as I have continued to listen to and interact with people for whom their same-sex orientation is an enduring reality, I have observed the power in honest acknowledgement and self-acceptance. Even though different individuals held different beliefs and values about how they ought to steward their experience of same-sex attraction, in all of these different scenarios it seemed that people were much better positioned to live in alignment with their beliefs and values when they had safe environments in which to honestly share the impact of their same-sex attraction on their daily life.

Additionally, when I looked at the kinds of unhelpful assumptions being made in the Christian community about the reality of LGBT people, I found a synergy with the strategies of gay advocacy groups seeking to end discrimination: if people actually get to know real people rather than relying on their theoretical ideas based on caricatures or stereotypes, their prejudices will diminish and they will recognize that same-sex oriented people have just as much capacity as anyone else to be a good neighbor, citizen and friend. This is what the church needed! They needed to realize that in many, if not most, congregations there were wonderful people experiencing this reality and at the same time were committed to faith in Jesus Christ. But the more hidden and isolated they were, the more they would struggle with issues of trust, self-acceptance, connection and authentic self-expression.

So through the years, I often found myself wishing that the folks who came to talk to me would have the courage to come out in their church environments. In the most idealistic sense, I felt this would be better for them and for their church to move forward. But….. no one lives in a perfect ideal world. And I knew that the fear of rejection was a very real and challenging barrier to these individuals coming out. And so it seemed to be a catch-22. People in the church wouldn’t learn to relate to sexual minority persons better until they had the opportunity to engage in the lives of real people and build relationships. Sexual minority people didn’t feel safe coming out in the church until church members had a track record of positive relating with gay people.

The coming out issue was also complicated by questions and assumptions about whether or not same-sex attraction could change, be healed, transformed or altered. That’s why I think we need to pull the barn down on the idea of reorientation and nurture an environment that holds in tension the reality that people who experience predominant same-sex attraction will likely continue to experience same-sex attraction the rest of their life while at the same time, there may be some fluidity or bi-sexual functioning that may emerge.

So, it’s the year 2012. The tide is turning and most people realize that some magical gay-to-straight formula doesn’t exist. So, should people who experience same-sex attraction come out or not?

It may be helpful to simply understand what coming out is and what it isn’t. At the most fundamental level, coming out begins with a self-acknowledgment that these attractions are part of your reality – they aren’t a phase, they aren’t just confusion, they are what they are. To get to this point, a person needs to have given themselves some time to understand their internal experiences and make sense of what they seem to be feeling in various contexts as they evaluate their draw to their own or opposite gender. I often encourage people to not try to rush to a resolution on this question. Even though we don’t like the tension of uncertainty, sometimes the best thing we can do is simply give ourselves the space to make sense of all the complex thoughts and feelings we experience. But there will come a time when things seem consistent over time and you know in your gut that this is a facet of how you relate to the world of people and relationships – that you feel you would be most completed by someone of your own gender. Acknowledging this to yourself doesn’t lock you in to any particular perspective or future decision about how you plan on living your life. It simply accepts that this is something about yourself that you will need to navigate and steward. It can be helpful at this point, for people of faith, to remember that there isn’t anything about you that God doesn’t already know. God’s love for you is unconditional. Accepting that this is part of your reality allows you to talk with God honestly and openly about this. From my perspective, even if there should be any future shifts in the direction or intensity of your attractions, it will always be important to be honest and accepting of yourself – even as you make determinations about choices and behaviours that will be in line with your beliefs and values.

The second part of coming out is the public part. And even here, it isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition. Most people begin with choosing a very trusted confidante to come out to. This is a person who knows how to listen well, who is non-judgmental and won’t leap to conclusions, someone who respects confidentiality and will honour your privacy, someone who will love and care for you unconditionally. Once you’ve had some positive experiences sharing with some individuals like this, then you can think about widening the circle a bit if you think that would be helpful to you and supportive of you in your ongoing journey to know yourself and live in alignment with your beliefs and values.

Sometimes telling the people closest to you is the hardest. It can feel like you have the most to lose in these relationships if people do not respond well. Depending on your age and stage of life, such persons could be your parents, your spouse, or your siblings. It may be helpful to think through your reasons for telling them and your goals for the outcome of your disclosure – and then communicating that clearly with them. For example, you might say, “I want to tell you this because I feel like I can’t be as open and as honest in our relationship as I would like to be.” “I want to tell you this because I want there to be a high level of trust and transparency in our relationship.” “I want to tell you this because I want you to know me – and as long as I am not honest about this I will always feel like there is a part of me you don’t know.” Some examples of goals for the outcome of your disclosure: “I want you to understand what my beliefs and values are and my intentions to live a life that is congruent. We might not completely agree on these, but I hope that you will respect the thought, care, prayer etc. that I have put into this.” “I want to work on a more open and trusting relationship with you and this disclosure is the beginning of that.” “I want to feel safe when I come home and know that I’m not going to hear gay jokes or derogatory statements about LGBT people.” “I want to be able to open dialogue about these matters so that we can come to a better understanding of what we each believe, why we believe that, and how we are going to relate to one another despite some disagreements we may have.” As these examples illustrate, coming out demonstrates an investment in the relationship. You come out because you want to move forward in relationship. This may be very important to communicate.

Coming out always comes with the risk that the individual may not react well. Sometimes, it can be helpful to say, “I’ve been thinking about these things for a long time – and I know you’re just starting to process what I’ve told you. I want to give you the time and space you need to think through what I’ve told you.” You may additionally let them know of some good resources that they can access – but leave it up to them if they take advantage of them or not. Sometimes this can become the white elephant in the room, and people don’t bring up the subject for a long time. This can leave you feeling unsure in the relationship. It may be helpful to see if you can commit to a time in a few weeks to return to this conversation with any questions they may have that you can help bring clarity to.

When you disclose your experience of same-sex attraction, it may be very helpful to articulate clearly so that you can prevent assumptions from the beginning. You may choose to disclose in stages if you are involved in a same-sex relationship. You might want to begin by telling them about your same-sex attraction – and give them some time to digest that before asking if they would like to meet your partner. If they ask you directly don’t lie. Tell them the truth. But also encourage them to recognize that this conversation is really a journey and you don’t need to cover everything right then.

Be as clear as you can be about where your current thinking is at concerning beliefs and values. Your clear answer might be that you just don’t know right now where you are going to land. That’s ok. Just be as clear as you can be.

It may be helpful, if your loved ones have a bit of a tendency to try to be “fixers”, to be really clear about what would be helpful for you. Some examples might be: “It would be really helpful for me if you would just listen to my story.” “It would be really helpful for me if you would read this book.” “It would be really helpful for me if we could watch this DVD together and then discuss it.” “It would be really helpful for me if you would ask me questions rather than give me advice.”

There may be some helpful qualifiers to communicate as well. You will want to communicate the language you are using to describe your experience. If you want to use the word gay, then ensure that there is a clear understanding of what you mean when you use it. If you do not want to use the word gay to describe you, you may want to explain why. You may want to say something about your primary sense of who you are, your identity. If faith is a priority for you, then it may be helpful to clearly say that your primary identity is that of a Christian. Or you may simply say that while you feel that it is important to be honest about your sexuality, you are much more than your sexuality and that you do not intend for your sexuality to define you. You may even need to differentiate between attraction and behavior for some folks you disclose to.

You may offer, particularly with parents, to do some mutual negotiation about who to disclose to in the extended family. For example, you may come to a consensus that telling your very conservative 87 year old grandfather isn’t likely to be very helpful for anyone. It may be important that you express your willingness to listen to their concerns and reservations about the extended family.

People often talk to me about whether they should come out to close loved ones in person or through a well-crafted letter. There are pro’s and con’s to each option. If you are very worried about not being able to be calm and clear, you may feel like writing a letter allows you to choose your words really carefully and to say exactly what you want to say. Sometimes I suggest that people craft such a letter – but then actually read it in person to the one they are disclosing to. You can simply explain that you wanted to express yourself carefully and for your nerves to not get the best of you. If you do write a letter, and can’t deliver it in person, then I do suggest that you give a follow up phone call after they receive the letter. Even if it is a brief conversation to just affirm your care for them and your hopes for open communication and loving relationship in the future, this personal contact may be very important.

A few final thoughts before I open it up to your contributions and insights. When you are disclosing it is important to do so from a place of inner self-acceptance and strength. Regardless of how the other person responds, you need to know that you are ok, loved by God, and accepted. As much as possible try to ensure that you do not go into a disclosure conversation looking for approval. Rather, you are disclosing because you care about yourself and the other person – and you want to have a relationship built on trust, honesty and integrity.

When disclosing, try to be as gentle and gracious as possible. Resist the urge to get defensive or confrontational regardless of how they respond. Again, find that core of inner strength that is built on God’s love for you.

Prayerfully prepare and prayerfully enter the conversation. You may consider asking others to pray for you – even if they don’t know all the specific details.

After you have disclosed you may feel vulnerable and alone – even if the conversation went well. Ensure that you have some thought-through supports in place to help you process.

Remember, no one can define your life for you. You need to wrestle with God and with yourself to make sense of your internal world, to shape your beliefs and values, and to make the choices that will help you to navigate your life as the person you want to be. At the same time, we are called into relationships, to risk, to welcome others’ input, to be accountable, encouraged, corrected or supported by others. Live in the tension between these two things and you will be best positioned to experience freedom and growth.

Reorientation: Time to Pull that Barn Down

2012-01-26T21:29:00.004-05:00

Driving home today I saw a barn in ruins. I didn’t have my camera with me, but it looked a lot like this photo I found. What struck me about the image of this barn was that the roof seemed to be strong and intact – continuing to fulfill its protective role. But underneath the shelter of the roof, the barn itself was in disarray. It seemed to me a good metaphor for the current state of reorientation ideology.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the system that upholds a focus and expectation that those who experience predominant same-sex attraction can and should pursue a shift towards opposite sex attraction. The system’s protective mechanism connects reorientation to other more politically inclined measures. Such a line of thought might go something like this: “If same-sex attracted people can change their attractions through prayer, support groups, accountability, therapeutic intervention, and strong motivation, then the idea of fair and equitable treatment for gay people is an unnecessary capitulation to a group of unmotivated, ungodly, selfish people who don’t care about normative sexuality and its connection to the strength of marriage and child-rearing.” Such reasoning has caused Christians, including Christians who had pursued such a process of change yet continued to experience same-sex attraction, to raise their voices in opposition to anti-discrimination legislation, anti-bullying measures, equal benefits initiatives, and civil gay marriage. Many did so believing they were upholding godly standards and that there was “no such thing as a homosexual person .... only heterosexual people with a homosexual problem.” They believed the theories of straight therapists who really have no idea what it is like to be same-sex oriented and the testimonies of those who claimed to have met the expectations of reorientation.

But what if these straight therapists have lost their objectivity? What if their reputations and careers have been built on being pioneers and leaders in this area of therapeutic intervention? What if they fail to see the invitational circle that so amplifies their clients’ desires to be straight that they self-report success that is then interpreted as absolute?

And what if the vast majority of those experiencing same-sex attraction and motivated by religious conviction are too frightened, ashamed, disappointed or disconnected to be able to honestly and authentically report the complex nature of their sexuality, attractions, convictions, commitments and self-expression? What if language meant one thing to one person and something different to another person – and assumptions about complete victory, freedom, transformation, and change were assumed but not intended?

In the last number of years we have seen an increase in articulating a more honest and clear self-assessment regarding this idea of reorientation. When I first came to New Direction, David, the support group leader for the ministry, told me in no uncertain terms that he was still only attracted to men. And while David’s no-nonsense commitment to honesty was shared by a few others who were single like him, it did not seem to be the norm in ex-gay circles and particularly among those who were married. As the years went on and I became a familiar figure in this world, I began to hear more nuanced stories behind closed doors. The need for honest self-disclosure was real and did happen with trusted colleagues. But then Alan Chambers and other Exodus leaders began to publicly acknowledge that same-sex attraction was still part of their experience – one that they daily chose to submit and surrender in light of their commitment to Christ and their spouse. This took a tremendous amount of courage – and it wasn’t always well received by those who had a lot vested in this reorientation system. But with these courageous admissions the system that had become more politicized than perhaps any of the ex-gay leaders ever intended, began to crumble.

Along a trajectory of public statements, Alan Chambers recently indicated on the GCN panel that 99.9% of folks do not experience a full and complete change in their sexual orientation. I’m sure Alan would want to nuance that by stating that some individuals do experience various shifts in their attractions, that there are seasons of diminished or heightened attractions, and that there is the reality of fluidity particularly for women. These are complex matters after all and binary black and white categories aren’t very useful for the vast majority of us. But this kind of nuanced, mysterious and unpredictable experience of attempting to manage ones’ sexuality is a far cry from the clear-cut claims of reorientation.

Just today, I received a book in the mail called, “Why I Slept with my Therapist: How One Gay Man Tried to Go Straight” by Brian Kraemer. I didn’t read the whole book yet – but read some key sections and skimmed the rest. It is one of the many accounts I have heard of the extreme measures individuals have pursued in the hopes of eradicating their same-sex attractions. Anyone who suggests that such folks didn’t try hard enough has clearly never really listened to these accounts.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a barn barely standing except for the roof ~ a roof of political power, straight privilege, anxious legalism, shame-based religion, and sacred cows.

My dad used to have a barn like that on his property. For a few years it just stood there, an empty relic of a time gone by. But at some point, this skeleton holding up a roof was too much of a hazard and my dad, along with the friends he recruited to help, took the time and energy to pull that barn down.

The time has come. This generation of young people knows it and many refuse to go anywhere near this unstable mess. Its time those who have propped up reputations and a spirit of entitlement move aside so that the barn can come down – so that those who might yet be trapped inside the web of expectation, shame and denial might emerge into the light.

The reality of being same-sex attracted is what it is. If this is your experience, it will not be in the best interest of your spiritual, emotional or relational health to try to hide it or convince yourself that it has changed if it has not. You still have choices and decisions in front of you. You can still choose how you want to describe this reality in your life and with whom you want to share it. You can still choose the beliefs and values that are important to you. You can still choose to live in alignment with these beliefs and values. If that means you remain faithful to your opposite gender spouse – that’s wonderful. If that means you live a celibate life – may it be life-giving for you. If that means you open your heart and mind to things you never allowed yourself to consider – may you receive generous wisdom and discernment in the journey.

But run out of this barn before it crashes around you. I’ve seen too many lives sucked into hopelessness, depression, and suicidal ideation all to prop up a power-play roof that cares very little about your personal life and health.

God loves you. Your experience of same-sex attraction doesn’t change that one little bit. He knows your heart. He sees you. And he invites you into his rest.

My friend David Hayward @nakedpastor posted this cartoon today:

Generous Spaciousness: Grace for Everything?

2012-01-20T11:35:00.002-05:00

It is understandable that the descriptive term generous spaciousness creates some inherent challenges. Some people resonate with it and seem to have a gut sense of what it is all about. For others, it is a term that fails to bring clarity to an already complex conversation. Part of the thinking behind coining such a description is that it necessitates further discussion. It is a description that invites further development and evolution and definition. I think this is helpful in our current discussions around the kind of climate we want to nurture in the Christian community in our interactions with those of us who experience sexual or gender identity differently than the majority of people do.

And that raises the first point about generous spaciousness: It is intended to describe the environment, climate, ethos within expressions of the Christian community as it pertains to engaging with gender and sexual minority persons. It is not a theological position statement. It is not about doctrinal boundaries. It is not about promoting particular positions.

We believe that such an environment is best nurtured from a series of postures:

• The posture of hospitality: all are unconditionally welcomed and invited into relationship

• The posture of humility: we all hold our own convictions deeply with the keen awareness that, “I could be wrong” given the reality that none of us has a perfect pipeline to God and all of us see through a glass dimly

• The posture of grace: I seek to have eyes to see the good fruit in another person’s life – particularly those with whom I may have particular disagreements; I expect the best, not the worst, of those I am in community with; I recognize that there will be times I am misunderstood and I determine to not get defensive or combative about it; I will do my best to not take offense and respond in the manner of Christ

The second major focus of generous spaciousness is that it prioritizes spiritual exploration and growth. Clearly the stewardship of our sexuality and the moral decision-making we are all called to is an integral part of our spiritual growth. However, for many sexual and gender minority persons such matters have been elevated to the primary and sometimes sole priority by those in the Christian community around them. In my experience, this perpetuates the very thing most Christians agree on, that people should not be defined by nor reduced to the realities of their sexuality. In light of this, generous spaciousness seeks to focus on encouraging individuals to explore and more deeply connect to the person of Jesus, to grow in wisdom and discernment, to develop mature spiritual disciplines like prayer, worship, silence etc., and to pursue a life of virtue that exemplifies the fruit of the Spirit. Regardless of where one lands on the question of appropriate choices for a life of faithful discipleship for gender and sexual minorities, this emphasis will best position someone to be open and able to respond to the leading and prompting of the Holy Spirit.

A third focus of generous spaciousness is that it is not intended to be a theoretical concept – but is intended to be an embodied and lived reality through relationships in community. This makes it a little challenging to have discussions about this concept divorced from shared life together. To simply have a discussion where one person brings in their experience and another contributes their separate and distinct experience may prove to be simply frustrating. Generous spaciousness only becomes a life-giving concept as people actually seek to embody it in their interactions with one another in real-time, face-to-face relationship. Though I think we can model aspects of generous spaciousness in online interactions, this is a limited expression of the depth of what the concept seeks to encourage.

For some, a description like generous spaciousness seems to be unhelpful because it doesn’t articulate clear boundaries. It is certainly true that generous spaciousness is not a stand-alone term. It is meant to encourage a particular environment within given groups in the Christian community.

So, in the context of a Christian family where there may be divergent views on the appropriateness of same-sex relationships, generous spaciousness might indicate a commitment to find common ground in a shared faith in Christ despite differences. It might mean that family members give each other the benefit of the doubt when sharing about their spiritual life rather than assuming that such testimony is counterfeit because of the position they hold on same-sex relationships. It might mean that there is a shared agreement to not allow debates and arguments consume family conversations. It might mean a mutual commitment to focus on encouraging each other to continue drawing near to Christ.

In a church setting, generous spaciousness might mean that within the framework of whatever clear position on same-sex relationships the church holds, there will be a sense of safety, trust, and freedom to wrestle with the variety of perspectives that exist in the Christian community on these questions. It might mean that individuals are encouraged to live in the tension between their personal autonomy to shape and own their beliefs and values and the call to live in mutual submission to one another within the context of the faith community. It might mean that space is made for someone who believes differently on the question of same-sex relationships with the understanding that the individual will not constantly seek to confront, coerce, or challenge others within the community to adopt their viewpoint. It might mean that once clear understanding has been established of the church’s position and an individual’s position, the focus prioritizes spiritual growth as described above.

In a Christian organization, generous spaciousness might mean that the idea of who can be a Christian is more than a code of moral conduct. It might mean that there is an intentional commitment to find unity in diversity with the understanding that people may form and shape their beliefs and values based on slightly different approaches to scripture – but it doesn’t mean that people can judge who cares about the scriptures and who doesn’t. In a Christian organization, generous spaciousness may mean that we recognize that sexual and gender minority persons may navigate their journey of discipleship in different ways but the priority should be to be alert to the fruit that is evident in their lives as they seek to follow Jesus.

Generous spaciousness as a descriptive concept doesn’t mean that anything goes. As we use this phrase in the context of New Direction, there are some non-negotiable matters that we believe are critical to address to be able to truly nurture environments that are generously spacious.

• Generous spaciousness is unapologetically Christ-centered. While we are humbly grateful to have the opportunity to engage those of differing or no faith, our focus on Christ as the source and energy behind our commitment to generous spaciousness is not up for debate.

• Generous spaciousness prioritizes fidelity. We believe that faithfulness is a core facet of God’s character – and we are called to model that in our lives and relationships. While we encounter and seek to be unconditionally hospitable to people who are not modeling fidelity in their expression of their sexuality, we unapologetically uphold the standard of fidelity.

• Generous spaciousness seeks to address and prevent harmful ideas and practices that have the potential to hinder or hurt a gender or sexual minority individual in their spiritual journey. We recognize that people may disagree about what is harmful – which makes this aspect of our commitment to generous spaciousness challenging. However, our priority is to ensure that gender and sexual minority persons have every opportunity and encouragement to explore and grow in their faith in Jesus Christ. We trust that the Holy Spirit can fulfill the role of bringing conviction and correction where it is needed. We may be used in that process – but leadership and control of that process is up to the Spirit of God. This means that we will seek to address issues of language, attitude, assumptions or pastoral practices that we believe are unhelpful and potentially harmful. Our determination of such issues arises out of the last ten years of ministry and listening to the stories of gender and sexual minority Christians and paying particular attention to their descriptions of harmful and painful experiences. Despite the reality that there will be disagreement about our determinations, we make no apology for doing our best to ensure that every same-sex attracted, LGBT individual has every opportunity to consider and embrace faith in Jesus Christ.

Generous spaciousness is not a perfect concept – but we do hope that it is a vehicle through which in the messy realities of real life in community we can, in the midst of our diversity, find common focus in Jesus Christ and in encouraging one another to explore and grow more deeply in our relationship with Him.

Identity & Authenticity

2012-01-17T11:06:00.003-05:00

The conversations after the GCN panel continue and as some of the talking past one another continues, I wanted to try to identify some of the reasons that I think this is happening.

One of the stumbling blocks seems to be an emphasis on the power of identity and identification on one hand and a focus on authenticity and honesty on the other. It seems that some voices in this conversation have very strong ideas about the manner a follower of Christ should identify themselves. The priority here is to identify first and foremost as a Christian and other identifiers fade away. It almost seems that to describe other identifiers, particularly ones that these individuals would see as problematic, is akin to a level of idolatry. Given this connection, it is understandable that they would have such strong feelings about the power of identity.
On the other hand, there are individuals who focus on the importance of being honest about the reality that a person experiences. This commitment to authenticity is often connected to experiencing a sense of harm from a season of trying to eradicate the reality they were experiencing. For such individuals, the feeling of self-deception and suppression did not lead to freedom or healing but rather to a numb and diminished sense of self. This diminished sense of self wasn’t a healthy “denying oneself, taking up one’s cross and following Jesus” but rather was a repudiation of the personhood that God had given that individual as a gift. I am not talking here specifically or solely of the experience of a same-sex orientation but simply of the unique, complex combination of factors that makes up who any one of us is. My pastor on Sunday morning told of an old pastor telling Brennan Manning, “Be who you is, because if you ain’t who you is, you is who you ain’t.” The fundamental reality of this is that we are God’s children, adopted by him, beloved ones, seen and fully known by Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is indeed the common ground between those who emphasize identity and those who emphasize authenticity.

I can personally attest to having been a part of a system where the emphasis was on stripping yourself of any identity other than that of seeking to be transformed into the likeness of Christ. I nearly lost any sense of who I was. Not only was this spiritually and emotionally incredibly unhealthy for me, it also rendered me essentially useless in serving anyone else. When you disconnect from who you are, you lose the ability to truly and deeply love, you cannot move into the humility of self-forgetfulness - because you have no sense of self to forget. In fact, I would suggest that this place is actually the epitome of inverted pride. And I rejoice that God rescued me from such a false sense of what following him as a radical disciple means. Embracing the unique realities, the good, the bad and the ugly, of who Wendy Gritter is has allowed me to have a real and authentic relationship with God, myself and others. It has freed me to actually receive and accept at the deepest place that I am a Beloved one.

The truth is the vast majority of gay Christians I meet absolutely affirm that the primary core of their identity is that they are followers of Jesus and that the source of their life is found in him.

So I’m afraid that sometimes people are talking past one another. And there are some predictable results. I’ve heard from a few different places that what happened on the panel wasn’t bridge-building but it was coercive and dogmatic demanding of theological shifts. I’ve also heard people reiterate that they cannot and will not accept gay ideology.

Since it has been suggested that I was one of the most assertive on some points on the panel, it is important to me to address these matters. While overall, I hope the panel was a step in opening up dialogue that will hopefully have some elements of bridge-building, my participation on Friday evening was as a former ex-gay leader. As the evening unfolded, it became clear to me that my focus needed to be on clearly addressing the central issue that I believe is the root of much of the harm that people have experienced through an ex-gay paradigm. If indeed very few individuals experience a radical reorientation in the direction of their sexual attractions, then I am convinced that it is critical that there be a climate in which individuals can be at the very least honest with themselves about the reality of their same-sex attraction. Such self-acceptance in no way suggests that this individual must identify as gay or must consider embracing a theological shift in regard to same-sex relationships. If people do not want to describe themselves as gay that is entirely their choice and one that I will respect. Certainly this is understandable particularly for those in mixed orientation marriages who want to be sensitive to their spouse. What I do know, however, is that many even in mixed orientation marriages come to a place where they need some safe places and safe people with whom they can be completely honest and authentic about the reality of their ongoing experience with some degree of same-sex attraction. Where there is no place for such honesty, I see people much more vulnerable to stress, temptation, and feeling overwhelmed or trapped. Because of this, I will adamantly encourage and advocate for systemic change that will allow people permission (it is rather sad that they need permission – but welcome to systematized religion) to be honest and authentic about their reality of same-sex attraction. I held this conviction even as an Exodus leader.

At the same time, I absolutely see and acknowledge the need for support and encouragement for those who hold to the belief that sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage covenant between one man and one woman.

So if advocating for intentional room and encouragement of honesty and authenticity is coercive or demanding of theological shift or ideological shift, then I’m guilty. But if this is common ground consistent with the good news of the gospel (as I believe it is) then perhaps the defensive accusations of dogmatism, of being unloving, of being coercive, of not extending generous spaciousness, of promoting dangerous ideology is unhelpful.

I know that many wish Exodus would disappear. They are cynical about the potential of such an established system really embracing a more honest and authentic ethos. I understand this. Because I am a follower of Jesus, I persistently believe in a God who is about the work of renewing and transforming all things – including systems, I hope for new life. I hope that the Exodus system will be able to honestly look at the harmful experiences of ex-gay survivors and recognize that a climate that essentially discourages self-acceptance of reality as it is will continue to harm individuals’ sense of connection to God, self and their faith.

As I said on the panel, I do empathize with the complex pressures that Alan is under as leader of Exodus. On the panel I did my best to balance care for him as a human being and the accountability that I believe Exodus needs. My sense is that Alan is in a lot of internal tension. I hope that he is really wrestling with these complex realities and the ways that our language usage makes things even more complicated. I pray for him to have wisdom and courage in his challenging role.

I also know that when I was in that difficult place of needing to critique aspects of the system that undergirded the work of New Direction, I needed people to be honest, forthright and upfront with me. I didn’t need anyone to sugar coat what we were doing and enable me to shrink back and simply continue to do business as usual. Real lives are impacted by these ministries. Real people who are deeply and dearly loved of God as they are – regardless of the direction of their sexual attractions. I have seen too many people become transformed by simply realizing that they could just accept themselves as they are and trust God to continue to lead, mold and refine them. I’ve seen people go from being fearful, inward focused, exhausted and depressed to being vibrant servants offering themselves to others in loving friendship and service. While I accept that there will be those who disagree with me, I cannot in good conscience accept a system that doesn’t encourage and support honesty and authenticity.

Matthew 5: 5 "You're blessed when you're content with just who you are—no more, no less. That's the moment you find yourselves proud owners of everything that can't be bought.”

Matthew 6:6 "Here's what I want you to do: Find a quiet, secluded place so you won't be tempted to role-play before God. Just be there as simply and honestly as you can manage. The focus will shift from you to God, and you will begin to sense his grace.”

Reflections on the GCN Panel with Alan Chambers

2012-01-11T22:50:00.003-05:00

As some of you may be aware, five days have passed since I participated in a public conversation at the Gay Christian conference in Orlando. For those of you not aware, I was invited to be on a panel with two other former ex-gay leaders, John Smid formerly of Love in Action and Jeremy Marks, Executive Director of Courage in the U.K., the Executive Director of the Gay Christian Network, Justin Lee, and invited guest, Exodus President, Alan Chambers. If you would like to listen to the panel discussion you can access audio links here: part 1 and part 2. A video release is also promised – though it may be a few weeks before the editing from multiple cameras is complete. Warning: the entire thing is apparently two and a half hours.

There has been a fair amount of discussion since the announcement of this conversation on Friday morning at the conference and I’ve been trying to follow most of it. My custom is to give myself some time to reflect and sift through the multiple responses to this kind of event prior to offering my thoughts in public. This post is an attempt to clarify, prioritize and envision positive steps moving forward.

Justin called me some weeks prior to the conference to seek my input on the potential for a bridge building conversation with Alan. I expressed a willingness to participate in such a discussion but also expressed some reservations about it being part of the conference and in the same location as the conference given the reality that there are many GCN conference participants who have had very painful experiences with ex-gay ministries. It has always been my modus operandi to engage rather than disengage in these kinds of situations. I didn’t hear from Justin further about this possibility so I was a little surprised to hear it announced on Friday morning that I was one of the panelists. He had asked me to keep that initial conversation confidential and it is critical that I demonstrate keeping such confidence, so I had not told anyone of the potential of Alan’s participation. I do apologize to friends who felt betrayed that I did not disclose this information to them – but I felt that I needed to honour the commitment I had made and that it was not my information to disseminate.

That evening Jeremy Marks and I had dinner with some friends and neither of us had any idea what to expect. We knew by now that there were a lot of mixed feelings among both the conference participants and the broader gay Christian community who had become aware of this event. I was also aware of ex-gay survivors who were angry and upset that there seemed to be little to no advanced preparation for provision for ex-gay survivors who may have been deeply affected by the sudden announcement. Two of the friends we were having dinner with had been appointed that afternoon to facilitate a time for ex-gay survivors to share their responses prior to the event. And while the event was clearly optional, I also know a number of people who felt in conflict about whether or not to attend and had little time during a full conference schedule to process and discern the best decision about that.

These external factors combined with internal concerns to leave me feeling apprehensive about the unfolding of this event. My role with New Direction invites me to walk what is sometimes a razor thin line in the many tensions and complexities that surround the intersection of faith and sexuality. Our posture of generous spaciousness means that we acknowledge the reality of diversity of perspectives and attempt to prioritize nurturing safe and accepting environments where people can honestly and authentically wrestle to discern their own beliefs and values and make the necessary choices to live in alignment with these values. This means that we intentionally choose to not align ourselves with particular positions in order to avoid perpetuating the typical polarity, “us vs. them” mentality, and “win / lose” propositions. This is a very difficult posture to explain to people and inevitably we often find ourselves being pressured by one side or the other to make a positional statement. It also means that depending on what environment I am in, people may assume that I hold the same position they do because my posture is usually one that is positive, encouraging and gracious. This can cause challenges when my participation in given contexts are made public by audio or video and people from the other “side” feel betrayed or concerned because I seem so at home with the other “side”. The reality is, to nurture generous spaciousness does mean that I need to be comfortable with either side, it means I need to be able to identify and empathize with common ground elements of each position, and it means that I will work to establish rapport no matter what context I find myself in. In most of the speaking opportunities that I have, I am there to serve those who have invited me. I may challenge some of the unhelpful things that I observe in a given group – but my challenges will always be towards greater hospitality and humility in dealing with those with whom they disagree. I do not, however, come with an agenda to change their position on this matter per sae. Rather than being focused on “what” people believe, I am usually focused on “why they believe what they believe” and “how they believe what they believe” (ie. How do they present their beliefs, how do they interact with those who differ, and what is their posture in presenting their beliefs.). It seemed that this panel was distinct from most of the opportunities I have had to engage publicly and I wondered how I would be able to embody the core values of New Direction while at the same time addressing some key concerns about the implications of an ex-gay paradigm.

Another factor that was before me was my place in the gay Christian community. As a former ex-gay leader there were understandably barriers of skepticism and mistrust to overcome as I began to engage with individuals in this community. My first GCN conference was in 2007 when I came incognito to simply listen and observe. I didn’t want my presence to make anyone at the conference feel unsafe. I returned to the conference in 2010 and also facilitated a workshop on bridge-building. I was very nervous and very aware that there was much more for me to learn from this community than I had to offer. I was also aware that I was there as a mainly straight married mom, so I wanted to try to demonstrate an authentic humility, a willingness to relinquish straight privilege, and begin to build trust through investing in relationship and through service. Returning in 2011 felt much more comfortable. People seemed more at ease around me and some even commented that I seemed more relaxed and free to be myself. Then this year, coming to conference felt like coming home. Hugs were plentiful, teasing & humour, and reconnecting & catching up …. I felt like I belonged. But I wondered if my participation in the panel would dismantle the credibility and connection that I had been intentionally building the last number of years. What if people thought I was too supportive or even just too nice to Alan?

But that wasn’t the only tension. What if people back home reacted to the perception that I was critical of Exodus? We have long-time straight supporters of our work who don’t necessarily understand all the nuances of bridge-building, of generous spaciousness or the tensions we regularly navigate. What if we lost more donors? And it isn’t only about money. What if people feel hurt and betrayed because they cannot understand why I would be part of an experience that is attempting to hold ex-gay practices to account? As I leader, I have responsibilities on many levels, many people I care deeply about, and I would never want my public actions to be a hindrance to a brother or sister in Christ. I felt tugged in many directions quite aware that the event would be taped and made more widely available than simply the audience in attendance.

As the event commenced, I could sense Justin’s nervousness. His extemporaneous style began to ramble, it seemed, and the longer he talked the more my emotions began to hum. I kept thinking that we didn’t have that much time and felt anxious that we wouldn’t get to address the vital issues. I say all of this because after my initial introduction to my leadership journey in moving New Direction away from an ex-gay paradigm, my participation in the panel was intense and passionate, assertive and some would say confrontational. I don’t apologize for this. I think it was appropriate for the discussion that was unfolding. I entered the conversation prayerfully, asking God to simply use me in whatever way he wanted to. And so while normally, my style is not to confront or push in my regular ministry work within the Christian community, this event seemed to call for a strength of conviction and a willingness to push for a sense of accountability – both for the live audience and for the bigger picture of stewarding influence in this critical issue at the integration of faith and sexuality. At one point, Justin even joked about him being the “good cop” with the inference that I was the “bad cop”.

Part of the “bad cop” role I found myself fulfilling was some strong extemporaneous language I made use of. I have mixed feelings about this post event. In the moment, in the context we were in, this language (“shit or get off the pot” “pissing off straight Evangelical donors” etc.) captured the “feeling in the air” so-to-speak. The jarring of discarding the “nice Christian image that is all sanctified” seemed to be consistent with the rising frustration I could sense from the audience. These were “cut the crap” kind of moments. In that sense, my language choice was intentional, risk-taking and appropriate. My concern is that for those just hearing the audio, they may or may not be able to understand the context of the moment in the live setting – and it may simply seem that I was being crass to be sensational or that my crassness takes away from the legitimacy of the issues I was raising. I am reminded of Tony Campolo saying, “While you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.” I don’t want my words to be discounted because my language choice creates some superficial offense that misses the big picture.

Anyway, now that it is over, what is my take? Well I have mixed feelings. I have had the opportunity to have conversation with Alan since New Direction left Exodus. In particular, he and I had a fairly extensive time to talk when we were both at the Lausanne Congress in South Africa last year. In a private, off-the-record, conversation there was more time for back and forth, clarifying where we each were at, no worries about the multi-faceted constituencies we are both responsible to. I felt like Alan did listen and did respect what I had to say and even though he was not in the same place I was, I felt like he was honestly grappling with what I raised.

I was also aware then, and reiterated in Friday’s conversation, that I understand the multiple levels of pressure that Alan is under. I know how scary and heavy the burden can feel in that place. There is no perfect way through where everyone is going to understand, be on board, and move forward with you. There is no way to avoid the fear – you have to face it and as Eleanor Roosevelt said, “We gain strength, and courage, and confidence by each experience in which we really stop to look fear in the face …. we must do that which we think we cannot.” Or another of my favourite quotes, “Don’t wait until you aren’t afraid – do it scared.” For leaders of Christian ministries, we are compelled to consider the apostle John’s words that perfect love drives out fear. There is no place for fear in love because fear has to do with punishment. Leaders do need to be discerning. They do need to understand readiness and be willing to be patient. But this is different than allowing fear of loss to get the upper hand. However, these fears are not best addressed by being confronted publicly. That is why I am uncomfortable with some people’s ascertion that this was an intervention. The intention was a conversation. And while I do not apologize for seeking to raise legitimate questions and probe for a clearer response, I am quite aware that a public panel like this is not the best forum to catalyze change. What I do hope is that Alan will honestly take some time to reflect on what was said, that he will openly allow his heart to consider the genuine response of the audience to the invitation to pray for him and his challenging role of leadership, and that this panel will, in the long run, proved to have played its part in the necessary development of a more honest, authentic, humble and generous Exodus message.

Perhaps I’ve been in these circles long enough that some cynicism has crept in – I hope not because cynicism really isn’t helpful. But I feel that Exodus cannot (or will not) change quickly enough. Maybe there are things in the internal workings that I am unaware of and things perhaps are progressing better than I think. But…. I’m not holding my breath. And the reason this is so important is because real people continue to be affected by this paradigm. While I understand the big picture pressures, I also have a sense of great urgency.

What are the priorities as I see them? I believe it is critical that Exodus focus on nurturing a climate that encourages honesty, authenticity and self-acceptance in the journey of discipleship. I believe it is critical for Exodus to really evaluate how they are honouring each individual's autonomy and creating environments in which multiple perspectives can at least be honestly explored and considered. And, I understand that this is complex. Reading some of the responses of those from within the Exodus community, I understand their dilemma. Some of them have experienced some shifts (particularly women) in their sexual attractions. It may not be a complete orientation change – but they honestly feel authentically connected to their opposite gender spouses. They feel like this is a hope they want to share with others who are same-sex attracted and committed to a sexual ethic that reserves sexual intimacy for a marriage between a man and a woman. I know people who have very life-giving and fulfilled mixed orientation marriages. Alan certainly describes himself this way – but I know quite a few others as well. I have no reason to discount or disregard or question the honesty of their stories. But there are also the people who have nearly lost their sense of self in pursuing an unattainable goal of being straight. We cannot trivialize or underestimate the pain and loss such individuals have experienced. So what can be done?

It seems to me that the honest way to approach this is to be very precise in the language that we use. Some people may wish to explore the potential they might have for bi-sexual functioning. This is simply an accurate and descriptive way to consider a realistic outcome. I do not recommend mixed orientation marriages to people – simply because of the unpredictableness of whether or not it will be a life-giving option for the particular people involved. I’ve seen positive examples and I’ve seen train-wrecks. Sometimes people with the best of intentions end up hurting others and/or getting very hurt.

The next thing to consider is what approach might actually help someone to explore this potential without the harmful experiences that we hear from current ex-gay survivors? I am not a therapist, so I will only offer some general remarks here. But that may lead to my first point: do not risk having lay people attempt to fill the role that only professional therapists should fill. Secondly, there needs to be non-negotiable honesty about realistic expectations. At best, someone may discover some bi-sexual functioning. The potential for a complete eradication of same-sex attraction is slim to none. This means that an individual must be encouraged to accept the reality that same-sex attraction is part of their experience. It is okay for them to decide how they will describe that. However, given the common usage of the word gay to simply mean ‘same-sex attracted’ as a descriptive term, it will be important for Exodus to cease perpetuating negative connotations associated with the word gay. I have found that even for people in happy mixed-orientation marriages, there is an authentic need to acknowledge the reality of their same-sex attractions, have opportunities to connect with other gay people in supportive friendship, and for some people to identify as either gay or bi-sexual. In my experience, people who prioritize their fidelity in their mixed orientation marriages are best served by being able to be fully themselves without pretense, suppression or secrecy. This doesn’t mean disregarding the stewardship necessary to maintain marital vows regarding fidelity in sexual intimacy, it simply means they are not pretending to be something they are not. This takes courage, a willingness to risk, the maturity to navigate the inevitable rejection that comes from people who insist on black and white categories and certainties, and a solidarity with an equally courageous and confident spouse. Perhaps the energies of Exodus would be better spent addressing these matters with those who are either in or are determined to pursue mixed orientation marriages.

The kind of stripping away of self that happens in many ex-gay programs is harmful. The association of emotional dependency with any emotionally intense relationship can lead to permanent disconnection in one’s emotional health and ability to deeply and meaningfully connect with another human being. The rifts that are created between gay children and their parents over perceived deficits promoted by unproven theories produce unnecessary alienation and grief. The assumption of past trauma as causative and the key to unlock the door to heterosexuality disregards research that illustrates complex combinations of predisposing rather than determinate causes. The perpetuation of a culture where fear of what others think is a pervasive thread is inconsistent with the good news of the gospel. We, as God’s people are called to fear the Lord in the sense of reverence and awe at the mystery of his reconciling love, mercy and grace toward us – but not in the sense of being so afraid of God’s judgment and wrath that you feel paralyzed in cognitive dissonance, trapped in the tension of unanswered questions. Confident, bold love of God invites us into a spacious place where wrestling with him results in a blessing.

While it is true that some people do need to work through difficult issues arising from their family of origin and others need professional help to process specific trauma, a system that only views these matters through a supposed causative link to the experience of same-sex attraction and employs people with insufficient credentials to address such matters is on a trajectory that will harm more than it will help.

Scripture calls us to strive to enter the rest of God. To perpetuate a system in which acknowledgement of persistent same-sex orientation even within the convictions of a celibate life is viewed as insufficient is to foster an environment where people can never simply rest and accept the truth that God loves them as they are. It is true that God loves us enough to not leave us where we are …. But what seems very clear is that the ongoing transformation of walking with Christ rarely, if ever, results in a 100% complete change in sexual orientation. Not only that, but for the majority of individuals, the predominant reality they experience moving forward is that they are gay – whether they accept that or not. How much healthier to simply create an environment where such self-acceptance can free someone up to get on with serving in the Kingdom of God? Continuous striving to dissociate from one’s experience of same-sex attraction smacks of the very narcissism that the ex-gay paradigm supposes it is addressing.

Some of you may be wondering just what the big deal is. Why so much argument around such a simple concept. Why the seeming reluctance on the part of ex-gay ministries to simply accept what they have already admitted – that very, very few people experience radical reorientation. Well for starters, you have influential people like Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Seminary proclaiming that the very experience of a same-sex orientation is sinful and a church-at-large that is content to perpetuate stereotypes and assumptions about people who honestly describe their experience of sexual identity as gay. So the climate for many Evangelical Christians is not conducive to be honest about their reality. That is why on the panel I was pleading with Alan to not allow straight Evangelicals so much power in determining how sexual minority persons ought to navigate their reality.

But the reason we all keep harping on this is because the ramifications are not only for North Americans who are, at least socially, in increasingly gay-positive environments. The perpetuation of suppression, shame, fear, self-loathing, hiding, and pretending rather than honest, authentic self-acceptance has been imported internationally with deadly results. One of my regrets of the panel is that we did not get to address the international implications of the ex-gay paradigm in rabidly anti-gay contexts. But if there was ever a wake-up call to honestly and courageously look at the consequences of refusing to accept the reality of persistently same-sex oriented individuals and their civil right to be treated with dignity and respect as a valued Image-bearing child of God, the debacles in Uganda and other African nations should be the needed slap-up-side-the-head.

As many have said, this isn’t about insisting that ex-gay ministries move from a traditional sexual ethic to one of affirming committed same-sex relationships. This is about insisting an acknowledgment of past harm and a future commitment to honest, authentic self-acceptance as the starting point to offering encouragement and support to live a life in congruence with one’s beliefs and values.

I do sincerely hope that Exodus and its ministries will have the courage to make these critical and foundational shifts in how they approach the reality of gay Christians. And I hope that I will be surprised by the how quickly God can turn a big ship.

Highlands Symposium - Denver

2011-12-04T22:25:00.002-05:00

The weekend before I went to Cambodia, I had the opportunity to go down to Denver to speak at the 3rd Symposium on the Evangelical Church & Homosexuality hosted by Highlands Church. Mark Tidd is the pastor there - and some of you may remember that Mark came to Toronto to participate in New Direction's Pastors Conversation DVD project.

I had a great time in Denver. Although, to be honest, I was nervous to speak in front of this particular crowd. Most of the time I am speaking to predominantly straight audiences with conservative leanings. This was an audience with a high attendance of LGBT folks and many who have clearly landed on an affirming position. Generous spaciousness, as the posture New Direction inhabits, invites engagement in such an environment .... but I have less experience with such a group. At the end of the day, generous spaciousness acknowledges the reality of an affirming position - but it doesn't promote it. And I think I worried abit that this could create a barrier and a disconnect with an audience that was primarily from an affirming perspective. As I watched the video of this presentation, I could remember my desire to build some rapport with this group ... and I now wince a wee bit at some of the ways I worked a bit too hard to include humour or sarcasm. Funny how we can revert so quickly back to that little kid who hopes that people will like them .....

That aside, I was really humbled and touched by the number of folks who contacted me after the conference to get a pdf of the slide presentation. Seems that despite my weaknesses and limitations in letting my nerves get to me a bit, people resonated with the idea of generous spaciousness and the invitation and challenge to live into incarnational postures.

It makes me hopeful every time I encounter a group who is willing to engage the posture of generous spaciousness - because it is a posture in which we intentionally choose to humble ourselves and listen to one another, honour one another, and seek to find common ground with one another despite our differences.

So thanks Denver .... and thanks Highlands .... I really appreciated the opportunity to learn in the context of sharing with you at the Symposium.

Cambodia ~ connection to the larger vision

2011-11-26T11:27:00.007-05:00

I wanted to take a bit of time for reflection before posting some final thoughts on the Cambodia experience. It has been so interesting to me how God interweaves experiences and conversations together to help us grasp some of the bigger picture. I’m grateful to those who have listened and reflected with me.

I went to Cambodia primarily to do some very specific site visits. In seeking to develop partnerships for our JustUs Community social justice initiative I wanted to be sure that I thorough understood the mission, philosophy and work of the agencies that JustUs will be promoting to our network of friends and contacts. It was my desire that these partner agencies would pique the interest of folks in our networks – but I wasn’t seeking agencies that only focused on LGBT matters. The whole point of JustUs is to create a forum for people to join with others in the pursuit of justice for those beyond themselves. JustUs is about sharing our humanity together to better the wellbeing of others. It isn’t meant to be about our sexuality. It is a place where gay, straight or trans, people can simply come together and share their passion for a better world by supporting through finances, advocacy and prayer, the practical grassroots work of those in particularly difficult and oppressive environments.

I hope that through the preceding posts, that you’ve had a good sense of the excellent work that is going on in Cambodia.

Chab Dai: is a partnering agency that works with nearly 60 different organizations in Cambodia. They ensure there is support, training and accountability for these partners in the pursuit of excellence in service as they pursue the eradication of human trafficking and exploitation and the care and support of victims and survivors. They are doing some excellent work in the area of research through the work of Dr. Glenn Miles.

First Step: a project of Chab Dai, Alastair Hilton and his team particularly focus on the unseen group of boys and young men who have been abused or exploited. In addition to offering primary care, they offer comprehensive training to other NGO leaders to ensure that prevention and care is improved wherever children are served. They are also involved in ongoing research.

Daughters of Cambodia: members of Chab Dai, Ruth Elliot and her team work with individuals who desire to transition out of the sex trade by learning new skills and entering sustainable, fair trade employment opportunities. In particular, they have a small group of lady-boys who are transgender individuals. These individuals are particularly mistreated in their society and often have very few options other than sex work. Daughters runs a training centre where clients are trained in skills such as sewing, jewelry making, silk screening, wood carving, food preparation and service, massage therapy, and spa treatments. They also run several fair trade businesses where clients can work and begin a new chapter in their lives.

I urge all of you to consider becoming more familiar with these organizations by going to their websites. I also hope that many of you will consider financially supporting their work. New Direction and JustUs will not be handling any of these donations. We encourage you to donate directly through the websites of the organizations – which are conveniently set up to receive your gifts by credit card. Finally, please pray for their work. At times the conditions are overwhelming in this context. The degree of trauma people experience is far greater than most of us can imagine. And yet, there is hope, there is transformation and healing for those who have been exploited, and there are second chances, new chapters, and a bright future.

I thought that this is why I was going to Cambodia – and this would have been reason enough. What I hadn’t really anticipated is the way this trip would integrate with the embryonic vision that has been stirring for the last year or so. This year was my tenth year in ministry at New Direction. Ten years feels like a particular chapter in this journey. In that time, I have helped to lead New Direction through an evolutionary path that has moved us from an ex-gay paradigm into the posture of generous spaciousness. Along the way, this meant navigating a lot of diversity, conflict, rejection and change. At times it has been painful. After many years of Exodus membership, it was not easy to leave that network and forge into the unknown. This world of bridge-building is emerging – while there aren’t that many contemporaries yet – it seems that more and more people are resonating with a concept like generous spaciousness that acknowledges the reality of diverse perspectives and seeks to find a sense of humble, hospitable unity in the midst of it. So, even though our work is far from finished, I have had the restless feeling of what is next.

I didn’t know how it would work out, but I felt like the next chapter would be more international in scope. Just the thought of it seemed overwhelming. The complexity on a global level of conversation is staggering. Different cultures, different levels of openness to the reality of sexual minorities, different degrees of readiness to have dialogue around the reality of differences in perspective. It seems too audacious to think about navigating all of that.

My attendance at the Lausanne Congress last year in South Africa allowed me to witness different Christian leaders from different contexts engage a conversation that was essentially grounded in an ex-gay paradigm. From my perspective, this conversation was limited by the reality that the gathering only included those from an evangelical background and was limited to one presenting paradigm. Even so, it was clear that cultural contextualization was not only essential but extremely challenging.

What could this conversation look like with a larger representation of the church participating? How might the conversation take shape if the foundation was constructive dialogue rather than one particular paradigm?

The first matter to address is: why. Why would leaders from different parts of the world, with different starting points, priorities and plans want to come together and try to experience generous spaciousness? Well it is clear that the last 40+ years of enmity and polarity have born very little good fruit for the church. So a new response is needed. It is needed because the public witness of the church is being hindered by the in-fighting on the subject of homosexuality. It is needed because the reality of diversity is not going away any time soon. As much as we might demand that we all get on the same page, the truth is that there are people who deeply love Jesus and highly regard the Scriptures who come to different conclusions on the question of whether committed same-sex relationships are a faithful expression of discipleship for same-sex oriented people. A new response is needed because gender and sexual minority persons are suffering within the church or alienated from the church. The call of the gospel is for all people – so the church cannot sit silently by while a minority population experiences marginalization. A new response that seeks an expression of unity in our diversity is needed because that is Christ’s desire for the church.

These convictions have been growing in me – and so I was especially delighted to find that in my conversations with leaders in Cambodia there was a shared desire for better understanding and for more generous space in investigating the realities and needs of gender and sexual minorities in that context. Mind you, as far I understand, the church in Cambodia isn’t touching this subject with a ten foot pole. And indeed, the church across the world is generally resistant to proactive innovation in responding to controversial matters such as this. But in the NGO world, these human realities, regardless of culture, aren’t so easily ignored.

As I’ve been reflecting and pondering the insights I’m beginning to gain about the Asian context, I’ve had the opportunity to have a couple more conversations that have encouraged me that God is putting some of the pieces of this next chapter together.

One ministry contact works with communities that speak Urdu and Farsi. These connections are predominantly Muslim. However, in the Canadian context there are also Christian churches who serve this population. A reality like a child coming out for this people group is a very challenging and difficult experience. And where the parents are immigrants and the children have grown up in Canada, there can be explosive conflict. Honour killing is not unheard of in these situations. The opportunity to learn more about the cultural context from these pastors and to offer some of my learning from the last ten years to help them pastor effectively is another step in being equipped to better understand how to contribute to a global conversation.

Another ministry connection has a new portfolio to tackle. She will be the program director for the General Assembly of the World Evangelical Association. Perhaps there will be the opportunity to launch another conversation in this context that considers more than just an ex-gay paradigm as a response to the reality of gender and sexual minority individuals.

Conversations, context, culture, connection ….. God is in charge of the timing, trajectory, and outcome …. But I am ready for whatever opportunities he puts in front of me. It is a strategic window for the church. And this is more than just a cool convergence. Lives are at stake. Harsher penalties and potential death sentences in the African and Middle Eastern contexts…..The church of Jesus Christ has the opportunity to proactively speak a clarion call to, “Do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with our God” in response to these matters. Let us not miss our opportunity!

Cambodia ~ sons & daughters

2011-11-21T06:21:00.004-05:00

Cambodia is known to be a place where human trafficking is a tremendous issue. Perhaps you have heard about rescues from brothels and tragic stories of very young girls enslaved by the sex trade. In an earlier post I wrote about going to a café run by the organization, Daughters of Cambodia. Later in the week I was able to travel to the training centre and head office for this amazing ministry.

I was encouraged to use the centre’s regular driver to take me to our meeting because most other drivers would not be able to find them. Indeed as paved but potholed roads gave way to dirt pathways that became more narrow and rutted as we went, I was glad to have taken their advice. The tuk-tuk drivers in the city couldn’t even find my hotel half the time – they certainly would never have found the training centre tucked into the slum and brothel district of Phnom Penh.

I was greeted warmly by one of the Khmer staff members and instructed to sign in, wear a visitor’s badge, and promise to abide by their safety policy – which included agreeing to take no photos. The vulnerability of the clients inside the centre was becoming more tangible.

Inside the court yard was a low gate that marked off the day care area. The children of the clients are cared for to allow their mothers to learn skills and work in the upstairs rooms. Most of the children were about 2-3 years old. One little guy was a climber and perched on top of the little play structure they had. He beamed and waved back at me. Another little girl had been practicing saying, “hello” and exuberantly greeted me with a very loud and repetitive rendition. Some of the children were sleeping in the midst of the mayhem of the others. Some were quietly being nursed by their mothers. At the back of the daycare was a washing station where mothers could bathe and shower their children and do laundry. There was also a health room where nurses were available several days a week to help with basic medical care for the clients and their children. There was a clinic they partnered with, I was told, for issues that were too complex for the nurses to address.

As we wound our way through the old and multi-level building I was glad for a guide. The many hallways and staircases would have guaranteed my disorientation. I began to meet the staff. People from various parts of the world were there. Some to volunteer, some to work for short terms of a few months, some working long term. Each had a story of God bringing them to Cambodia and to Daughters. Many were social workers working collaboratively to build support networks for their clients. The Khmer staff integrated seamlessly with ex-pat workers – some being former clients. Both Khmer and English were spoken with staff making efforts to learn and speak both.

After going up yet another staircase, I encountered a group of women sitting on the floor learning to sew by hand. These were the newest clients. Many of them would not look up to meet my eyes. They were very quiet and had a blank look in their eyes.

Entering another room I found another group of women doing crochet work making scarves. This group was much more chatty and engaged with one another. They were eager to show me their handi-work and several flashed smiles my way.

In the sewing room just a few girls were seated by the multiple industrial sewing machines. The power had gone out and so the machines sat idle. Most of the girls had gone to sit on the outside balcony where it was cooler. One of the women sitting by the machine looked exhausted and I motioned with my hands inquiring if she was sleepy. She smiled and nodded. The clients do not live in the centre. Some may still be working in the evening even as they struggle to leave the sex trade by coming to the centre in the day-time. This exhausted young woman was a stark reminder of the toll of living both lives.

Outside on the balcony, the women were busy with doing the finishing work on stuffed animals, sewn Christmas ornaments, and beautiful purses and bags. They clearly took pride in their work as I showed an interest in seeing what they had created.

I asked my guide why all of the clients were wearing head wraps – I wondered if maybe that was to help keep them cool. She explained that they did not want head lice accidentally dropping into any of the products they were making – and so as not to single anyone out who might have lice, they all simply wore the head wraps. To be honest I had to pray for a moment, because my first thought was that I did not want to have to deal with head lice. But I fought within myself to stay present in that moment and again try to connect with the reality of the life these precious women were struggling to recreate.

Another room revealed a group of clients doing silk screening. I immediately knew these individuals were the lady-boys I’d been anticipating meeting for many months. And my heart was drawn to them in a very particular way. I had to catch myself because something in me wanted to reach out and enfold them in a warm embrace – but I instantly knew that was more about me than them. This small group of individuals did not particularly exude external beauty but there was something magnetic. I wished in those moments that I could speak Khmer. I felt like there were stories just waiting to be told, stories that had rarely been heard, stories that few would understand. I lingered in this room, my guide clearly was ready to move on, but I was not. I felt a connection that I hoped was not manufactured, drummed up in my own sentimentality. I thought of the life these individuals had lived up till now and my heart was bursting with pain and love and compassion and hope and an overwhelming desire to somehow convey all of this to this small group of five. In the end, all I could do was linger, hoping that my interest in their silk screening would communicate some drop of the value and affirmation and care that I wanted to express.

From there we went to the coconut room so named because of the chiseling of the casing created jewelry pieces. Here I was to encounter another group of lady-boys. The five in the silk screening room had presented as female. This group of four presented as male. I confess still don’t quite understand the realities of gender identity for this group. I can’t unravel the complexity of internal identity, trauma, exploitation, and culture. I expect that these factors impact different individuals in different ways. What I can say, however, is that I was simply drawn to the person, to their humanity, to their resilience, to their strength to have survived. In the coconut room was an older individual I later learned was around forty (many don’t know their actual birthdates). He had been in the sex trade for more than twenty years. I tried to imagine the violence and trauma he must have endured. It is not uncommon for me to hear stories from those in the west who traded sex for money of johns who would express their internal self-loathing by beating the one they’d just had sex with. I can only imagine that in the Cambodian culture where violence has permeated relationships at many levels and where same-sex sexuality is hardly acknowledged, such experiences were common and consistent. Yet here was this man whose smile immediately drew me in. His countenance was pure joy. His kind and sensitive spirit immediately discernible. He had been made supervisor of the coconut room, I heard, and he beamed with a sense of purpose and accomplishment. On the wall I noticed a poster with the words to the song, “In Christ Alone”. I asked my guide about it and she told me that one of the workers had been teaching it to the clients. So I began to sing the words, “In Christ alone my hope is found, He is my light, my strength, my song….” And this man began to sing with me. I can’t quite describe what those moments meant to me. It wasn’t an evangelistic thing. It wasn’t a religious thing. But it was a moment of holy ground – of the privilege of glimpsing a life reclaimed from exploitation and violence – to a life of restored beauty, sensitivity, kindness and compassion. I glimpsed a beautiful soul that day.

As I was led into an office to meet with Ruth, the founder and director, my heart was full. I still needed to know, however, the intent of the ministry in connection to the lady-boy clients in particular. Was there a gender agenda for these individuals? Was the presentation of male by those in the coconut room an autonomous choice or a desired outcome by the agency? That these individuals were cared for and accepted, I had no doubt. But would I be able to recommend this work for support by those in my networks back home with integrity and honesty? I knew I had to ask some hard questions.

As our conversation progressed I was touched by Ruth’s humility. It was clear that she knew that she didn’t have all the answers when it came to working with this population of clients. I suggested that it was like moving forward without a map. Because these individuals have been impacted by such complex factors, each one has a unique journey and a distinct future. It was clear that Ruth’s priorities were the health and well-being of these individuals as human beings. She was concerned about the pattern of clubbing and hard partying that many engaged. For those who’d been rejected and abused so consistently in their lives, such high risk escapes were poor substitutes for unconditional love, security, and a sense of community. When I asked about the autonomy of the individual to make their own gender identity decisions, it seemed clear that I was asking questions that were framed within western constructs and timelines. While eventually, this may be a decision these clients need to make, the basic needs for shelter, food, job skills; the need for counseling for trauma, emotional support systems, and the building of trust-worthy relationships & community were essential foundations upon which any consideration of gender identity could be explored. Ruth also explained that she was partnering with First Step (I shared about meeting Alistair in this post) to conduct the counseling for these individuals since they were better equipped to navigate the complexities of orientation and identity.

It seemed to me that Ruth was used to having to navigate conversations with donors very carefully about their work with the lady-boy clients. She seemed to feel free to talk with me, given the context of my work with New Direction, about the nuances and complexities. In fact, she even mentioned to me that they needed to go back to their website and try to articulate with more clarity the priority and focus of their work with these clients and to ensure that inquirers understood that there was not a conversion/change agenda behind their efforts to create a safe environment in which these individuals could gain the support and skills needed to live a whole and hopeful future free of the sex trade.

I’m very grateful to have had the opportunity to go to the centre and be present with the amazing staff and clients who make up the family at Daughters of Cambodia. There was a gentle and kind spirit about the place. I was thankful for Ruth’s time and her candor with me about their work. I do not have any reservations in recommending your consideration of this important work for your prayers, support and advocacy. In fact, I would actively seek your support for this work. As I asked Ruth what I could pray for for her personally, she spoke of the spiritual attack, the cost, the pain. And as I prayed for her and hugged her, I could sense both the calling and the cost. Please remember Ruth and work of Daughters of Cambodia in your prayers. Please consider supporting their work directly at this link.

As I prepared to leave, I heard a little but loud voice calling, “hello, hello, hello…..” and as I went, I left a piece of my heart behind.

Cambodia ~ many complexities

2011-11-14T05:40:00.009-05:00

This morning I had the good fortune of meeting with Dr. Glenn Miles. Glenn’s journey in Cambodia began more than 25 years ago when he worked in the camps just over the Thailand border. 200,000 Cambodians were living in this camp after the Khmer regime had ended and the Vietnamese entered Cambodia. Through the years, Glenn has worked with a number of different NGO agencies with a consistent focus on child protection. A number of years ago Glenn completed his Ph.D. with a focus on hearing from a child’s perspective the ramification of abuse and exploitation. It was clear from our conversation that Glenn’s heart beats for children who experience violence and oppression. Whether it be an issue of corporeal punishment in schools, domestic violence in the home, sexual abuse or exploitation and slavery, Glenn works at numerous levels of influence to advocate for systemic change.

I found it fascinating to hear him describe how Cambodia has changed in the time he has been connected to the country. In particular, he described a visible change in the general attitude and approach to parenting. In previous years, there was very little connection or nurturing of children. This sad reality is understandable when you consider that a generation of parents had never experienced being parented due to the trauma of war and the Pol Pot regime. People were numb and many suffered the effects of some degree of post-traumatic stress. As a new generation begins to have children and parent, however, one can see children engaging and interacting more with their parents.

Interpersonal violence continues to be a systemic issue. For a people who had lived through such trauma and torture, violence can seem to be an accepted reality. Glenn and I also talked about the implications of the nation’s general adherence to Buddhism with its inherent passivity and fatalism (in this particular expression of Buddhism). These factors combine to raise the need for education and awareness of the implications of such generally accepted violence.

Where the conversation became particularly interesting was when Glenn and I began to speak about his engagement with sexual minorities and the transgender community here in Cambodia and also in Thailand and India. The levels of complexity that he encounters as he tries to best understand the needs of individuals are staggering. The goal is to extend dignity and value and a sustainable future ~ but the questions of how to best do that are not so easily answered. Does a young man who was forced to work in a massage parlour since the age of 8 until 22 understand his sexual identity? Is he gay? Is he confused? Is he traumatized? Where does he go from here to find his identity, a place to belong, a relationship of love and intimacy, sustainable employment, a life outside of exploitation? Western questions of orientation and fluidity and causation seem pat and compartmentalized in the face of such sustained trauma.

In a land where sex tourism is a reality, who are the men who are having sex with underage boys? Are they pedophiles? Are they gay? In the western context we draw a very clear and necessary line between someone who is same-sex oriented and someone who is a pedophile. But what does that mean in a context like this, in a culture that has not created a hospitable space for same-sex oriented adults to live honest and authentic lives, where sexual mores differ? There are more questions than answers ….. and no simple answers it seems. The priority concern is the protection of children. But another essential priority is the extension of dignity and respect to those who are sexual minorities in this context. As I consider these complexities, it seems so far removed from the lives of my many partnered gay friends in North America.

And what about the lady-boy sex workers here and in other parts of south Asia? Are they transgender? Are they playing an expected role? It isn’t so simple to gain a clear answer. Glenn told me that Thailand is much more open and accepting about the reality of trans sex workers than Cambodia. He wonders if that would be a better climate than the current hiddenness of lady-boys here in Phnom Penh and Siem Riep. Would it make the lives of these individuals easier? Would it enable them to remain in the sex trade? In a difficult context, perhaps more will consider programs that will help them transition into fair trade employment situations. On the other hand, the potential violence and vulnerability of lady-boys in Cambodia is a great concern and perhaps more openness would create safer conditions for them. No easy simple answers here.

But thankfully, Glenn is a researcher and not afraid to look at things as they really are and do the hard work of listening, observing, asking and learning. A disconnected opinion from outside of this context isn’t of much help. But someone living incarnationally who is fearless in investigating the actual reality of gender and sexual minorities among those who are exploited and traumatized is a great treasure. Already since our meeting, Glenn has sent me his study from September 2011 entitled, “What about boys? An initial exploration of sexually exploited boys in Cambodia” and his work on the Masseur Boy research project. He also sent me an ethnography of sexualities in Cambodia produced by UNESCO. I look forward to reviewing them and posting them to our JustUs Community website when I return home.

I am humbled by the work that is going on here. I am grateful for the deep commitment and openness that I am encountering to truly extend dignity to gender and sexual minorities in the midst of seeking to understand all the complexities and to educate and raise awareness of issues that are harmful to minors and those who have been traumatized.

This is work that we need to get behind. We need to work in the window of time that we have to support those who know and understand this cultural context and who work towards the prevention of abuse and protection from exploitation while also creating generous and gracious space for gender and sexual minorities to feel safe, to heal (if they have been traumatized), and to move forward into a sustainable and life-giving future.

Glenn works in conjunction with a number of organizations including: Chab Dai, First Step, and Love 146.

Later in the day I had the opportunity to visit the offices of both Chab Dai and First Step. I was moved by the visual evidence of their deep commitment to organizational excellence in the pursuit of justice for all as they work to end sexual slavery and exploitation. Their staff work incredibly hard with portfolios of projects that could easily demand twice the number of people. They are passionate, committed, and qualified social workers, counselors, project managers, and trainers. I hope the pictures will capture for you the critical work of these organizations.

Cambodia ~ glimpses of restoration

2011-11-13T06:23:00.003-05:00

My third full day here in Cambodia provided moving glimpses of restoration. After getting some computer work done on my terrace, I hopped in a tuk-tuk to head over to the hotel where my friends Karen and Mark are staying. It was farther than I thought and I was able to see a part of the city I’d not yet travelled through. I’m very grateful to have my friends here at the same time and for their gracious inclusion in their plans. It is giving me a chance to process, reflect, and learn from their previous experiences and relationship building in Cambodia.

Karen and I headed over to Daughters of Cambodia Café and Spa. This is one of the fair-trade businesses run by this amazing NGO. This describes their approach, “Daughters has developed a unique model in Cambodia, one in which sex workers come direct to the organization from the brothels by choice. Daughters’ day centre, in the heart of an area of Phnom Penh brothels, reaches out to girls working as sex workers and offers them ways out of this situation. We are not a shelter, but we facilitate the girls' exit from the sex industry by providing a number of resources and programs that enable them to set themselves free and sustain healthy choices for their own lives. They come because they are already motivated to change their lives, and Daughters gives them choice and dignity in building a different future, that make their choices sustainable and respect their human rights. Most organizations in Cambodia that work with sex workers, rescue them by force; the process is traumatic, and in most cases is not sustained once they re-gain their freedom because no alternative job has been provided and pressure from parents for money forces them back to the brothels. At Daughters, if girls wish to change their life-styles, they are empowered to make changes by building their internal capacity and through immediate alterative income generation in the provision of jobs. Rather than learn NGO dependence, the girls learn to be responsible for their own lives and accommodation and provide for their staple needs out of their salaries, in order to foster sustainability.” And this is what they say about their commitment to fair-trade business opportunities, “At Daughters we are aiming for sustainable outcomes, in which clients can successfully live independently in their own community, and achieve quality of life. An important part of girls being able to make and sustain lifestyle changes is provision of a job. Daughters has several small businesses to provide jobs and training to girls who leave the sex industry. Our businesses are fair trade, with higher salaries than in other comparable businesses in Cambodia, and good working conditions. Clients are able to access free supplementary services built into the working day including medical clinic, counseling clinic, creative programs, daycare, and educational programs.”

We began by heading up to the café and enjoying lunch. Our server was working very hard on her English and even remembered Karen’s face from seeing her a year ago. It was hard to believe that this bubbly young woman attuned to customer service professionalism had once been in a brothel. Then a smiling young man brought us our meals. You see while the majority of the programming for daughters reaches young women, they also have a part of the program that works with the “sons”. These young men once worked as sex workers as well – known as “lady-boys” in this part of Asia. They also gain the opportunity to learn new job skills and transition out of the sex trade and into sustainable employment and a new life. This particular young man knew very little English, but his laughter and joy at serving us was palpable. This was my first glimpse of the work of this NGO that I’ve been praying and dreaming of partnering with since Karen first told me about encountering them a year ago.
On Tuesday morning, I will head out to the slum area of Phnom Penh to the training centre of Daughters and will meet with Ruth the founder and executive director. I hope to learn much more about their incredible work so that I can convey it honestly and well to New Direction’s networks. But our stop at the café was a wonderful opportunity to see some of the results of Ruth and her team’s labour.

After lunch, we went down the stairs into the spa room. We had signed up to receive the head-to-toe massage and were ushered in to get our feet washed. As I sat experiencing this foot-washing I couldn’t help but think of the account of Jesus washing his disciples’ feet. This young woman was serving me – and I wished I could hop down from the chair and serve her. Again, I found myself trying but unsuccessful in attempting to connect the horrors of a brothel with this beautiful young woman so tenderly and yet skillfully (they were trained by a Canadian massage therapist) massaging my feet. The spa only allows female clients and massages are done in chairs with clients fully clothed. Massages go from the feet to the knees then on to the arms and conclude with neck and head. Such protocol reminds the client of the traumas these girls have endured and ensure a safe and professional environment for them to work as skilled practitioners. The girls, side-by-side, chatted away in Khmer to each other, often smiling, checking the clock to ensure they were moving through the massage according to schedule, following the method they had been taught to a tee. In their uniform of simple white t-shirts emblazoned with the word “Daughters” and linen brown capris, they were clean, healthy, and appeared as any of the many south Asian women I encounter in my own neighbourhood back home. As Karen and I left she shared that she’d had a really neat prayer time for the woman who was doing her massage. But truly, we were the recipients of amazing grace. What a miracle. What a privilege to be served by them. What an amazing demonstration of transformation.

While I look forward to sharing much more with you about the Daughters of Cambodia organization after I meet with Ruth and her staff on Tuesday, I hope that in the meantime you will check out their website and begin to pray for and learn the incredible story of this truly life-giving work.

Crucifixion and Cambodia

2011-11-11T05:31:00.003-05:00

Cambodia is a place of great contrasts. It is a place where beauty and ugliness stand beside one another. Where wealth and poverty shake hands. Where ancient art mingles with cheap imitation. Where dignity and desperation dance. Where serenity and trauma jostle together.

I went to the royal palace today. The monarchy and the religion of Buddhism intertwine on this site of beauty from afar. Ancient artifacts intricately created by artisans lie in dusty display cases with crude numbering visible to the range of tourist eyes – the devout, the curious, the bored, the intrigued. Wood work seems almost crude with stenciled gold paint that appears to have been applied with little craftsmanship. Is this the evidence of a people scrambling to pull together tourist sites after the blight of genocide traumatized a people, a culture, and nearly obliterated the legacy of the arts? Are the obvious repairs to broken and crudely painted cement statues the story of an impoverished people after years of civil war and cruel and evil dictatorship? Are the numerous boxes for contributions signs of religious devotion, superstitious bondage, or the reality of economic struggle?

The Cambodian people are beautiful with smiles wide. They exude grace in the sweltering heat and humidity with long sleeves and hoodies while I am nearly brought to my knees. They are eager to help. Unhurried yet attentive. They laugh – a miracle given atrocities of not so many years ago.

As I seek to take it all in, to absorb this very different context than my own, there are so many layers, so many competing images I see. I am here, the learner. The one who watches and listens. The one who tries to imagine what is fair and right and kind and just in this place of paradox.

In the heat of the day I went on to the genocide remembrance place – the notorious prison where 20,000 entered and only 7 survived. Row upon row of mug shot photos – taken as the prisoners sat with an instrument of torture pressed against their skull conveniently hidden from the camera. Except for the photo of the mother holding her baby exposing the device. As I looked into the eyes of men, women and the smallest and most beautiful of children, I marveled at the variety of stories told in these faces. The defiant ones who stared the camera down. The ones who laughed in the face of death. The sad eyes calling us to remember them. The terrified eyes pleading to wake up from this nightmare. The exhausted eyes, nearly closed, bruises indicating that the tortures had already begun. So many eyes, so many stories, so many lives ….. my own eyes long to simply go numb as so many in the photos. It is too much to take in to imagine futures demolished. But then, one sees photos and paintings of torture …. And eventually one gets to the room with glass cased of skulls and bones. Some still have the blindfold over empty sockets. Some are shattered. All stare vacantly accusing the world of turning a blind eye. They silently scream, “Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia, Sudan ….. how could you let it happen again??”

The air is heavy, the stench is not far off. A man with his face disfigured from burns begs with a tattered hat held up to my tuk-tuk. A child, the pawn of a needy adult, is thrusting braided bracelets at me to buy. Two survivors are selling their books – sitting day after day in the very place that sought to steal their soul. Then a beautiful young woman posing for her lover, the backdrop is the braided barbed wire – suicide prevention of desperate prisoners, and she beams a massive smile for the photo. And my spirit screams and the nausea creeps up into my throat and I fight to stand.

And I am reminded, “This country does not need me or the advocates I seek to mobilize, or the fragments of funds offered…… I need this country, our friends need this country, the world needs this country…..” This I know theoretically as a good principle, a movement of intentional humility ….. but in this sweltering prison yard I know it in a deeper way, a way that doesn’t just humble me – it crucifies me.

Why Cambodia some ask? Cambodia holds not just a story, not just a lesson, but a divine invitation. Cambodia, not alone in this calling – but with its own distinct opportunity, sings to the world a lament of remembrance that speaks today in this moment. A country of contrasts. Stepping into the tension. To listen, learn, tearing the heart muscle to induce growth.

Wait. Be still. Be present. Choose to remain. Identify with. Love with tears.

Cambodia ~ connecting with First Step

2011-11-10T02:45:00.004-05:00

For those who are friends on Facebook, you may have already heard that I am currently in Cambodia. And some have already asked why on earth I am here. No, it is not a vacation, although it is beautiful, sunny and warm here.

For the last year, I have been developing the idea of a social justice initiative for connections of New Direction. This project will find its hub in our new JustUs Community website. This website will be a place where we tell stories, share hopes, concerns and needs, and join together in advocacy and support.

It is an initiative that focuses on our common humanity. Gay, straight, trans ~ the focus is not on our sexual or gender identity ~ but rather on our shared passion to work for peace, healing and hope. For too long, a reductionism that prioritizes gender and sexuality has limited the contributions of those with gifts, passion, and a voice for justice. The JustUs Community wants to amplify the voices of those who have so often been pushed to the margins in support of those on the margins.

That brings me to Cambodia to have the rare opportunity to see first-hand some of the projects that we hope to partner with through the JustUs Community. I want to be able to convey the work of these grassroots programs with honesty and integrity so that those who choose to engage will have the assurance that these programs align with New Direction’s core values to be respectful, relevant, relational, redemptive, hospitable and hopeful. I want to ensure that any project that I invite our contacts to consider advocating for and supporting is truly dignifying and humanizing to all recipients.

This morning I had the opportunity to meet with Alastair who is the Founder and Executive Director of an organization called First Step. Alastair is leaving for an important forum in the U.S. so this morning was the only chance we had to meet ~ and I went into the meeting hoping that my jet lag wasn’t going to impede my focus and concentration during our conversation.

Alastair is British and worked for many years in the U.K as a social worker. It was during his time in the U.K that he began to work with young boys and men who had been sexually abused. Six years ago, he came to Cambodia and began to develop the First Step project. One of the first things he did was a thorough research study entitled, “I Thought It Could Never Happen to Boys” which was the first study of its kind in Cambodia. Since that time, Alastair and his small staff team have focused on both prevention and care. In the area of prevention, First Step has developed a training curriculum for leaders of other non-profit organizations in Cambodia. This curriculum is a total of 35 days over the course of a year with a second year of follow-up. In the area of care, First Step receives referrals from other agencies and works with both victims and their families.

In our meeting Alastair and I primarily discussed the training curriculum and the experience of working with other leaders. They are currently running their second cohort and they are encountering tremendous systemic need for this training. Part of the dilemma in trying to open a subject that has typically been met with denial and silence, is that many organizations want to present a successful program and it can be difficult to acknowledge a lack of equipping and need for growth. Alastair and his team encounter a lot of defensiveness and slammed doors, particularly when they conduct risk assessments for organizations and point out weaknesses and gaps that need to be addressed.

In particular, Alastair spoke of well-established organizations in Cambodia that function on an institutional model. In these situations, children are cared for in the most efficient way possible for the staff. Rules and systems are developed in a way that primarily serves the needs of staff. As an example, he spoke of many abused children living together in a program. One of the rules was that children were only allowed to phone their family once a month. When Alastair questioned why this rule was in place – the response was that it was too much work for the staff to allow more contact with the families. In a child-centered program, however, it is recognized that a healing journey that involves the family (assuming the perpetrators are not family members) will be much more holistic for the child. We also spoke of the challenges of adequate supervision of children who are essentially wharehoused together and the risk factor of children becoming perpetrators themselves in such an isolated system.

But as leaders go through this extensive and well developed curriculum, they gain both the knowledge and practical skill to identify, engage and provide support to boys and young men who have experienced the trauma of sexual abuse. By focusing on multiplying themselves through training, First Step is make strides to dramatically improve the care of victims and survivors in a cultural system that is overshadowed by a deeply imprinted D.A.D.T (don't ask, don't tell).

I was particularly intrigued to speak with Alastair about the aspects of their curriculum that deal with sexuality. In Cambodia, it seems that the term MSM (men who have sex with men) overshadows the use of the term gay. In the Khmer language the term “ kteuy” seems to be a catch-all term for anyone who doesn’t fit into the traditional categories of male or female or heterosexual. In this primarily Buddhist context, there seems to be a general tolerance for LGBT people. However, Alastair also shared some horrific accounts of gang rape of men who appeared effeminate in rural areas. Understanding of sexual orientation seems to be very limited among the leaders with whom Alastair has been working. He spoke of developing a new section of the curriculum that would address this in greater detail.

It seems that a few years ago, a practitioner of reparative therapy wanted to come to Cambodia and do some training with a group of organizations of which Alastair was a part. Alastair was instrumental in discouraging this training and is one of the leading voices among charitable organizations (many of which are faith-based) to counter-act a change agenda.

While targeting a gay tourism market seems to be developing in Cambodia and there has been a Pride parade in Phnom Penh since 2004, Alastair described a lack of holistic focus in many of the MSM organizations. Many of them focus primarily (and perhaps exclusively) on HIV/AIDS prevention. This reductionistic focus can perpetuate discrimination and stereotypes about gender and sexual minorities. Alastair hopes that in the future he will have the opportunity to work with more of these organizations and through the curriculum of First Step encourage these organizations to take a more holistic approach to the reality of MSM persons in this context.

Despite some jet lag, I was energized and hopeful after my meeting with Alastair. He is a thoughtful and insightful man who is keenly aware of the systemic issues that his work through First Step exposes. He is committed to debunking the myth that the sexual abuse of boys is a “gay issue”. Yet he is also concerned that in the NGO (non¬-government organization) world, staff have a holistic understanding of sexuality and the importance of dignifying every individual, including gender and sexual minorities. I am very excited to be able to review more of the curriculum and to also connect with Alastair in the development of additional material around sexual orientation.

I encourage you to check out Alastair’s website: http://www.first-step-cambodia.org/
And I also pray that as we continue to share the story of the work of First Step, that your curiosity and passion will be elevated and that you will join us in supporting this important work.

New Launch & Resource Sale! ..... and catching up

2011-10-11T10:34:00.015-04:00

The blog has been pretty quiet lately .... and all the typical excuses apply .... it has been super busy at the ministry of New Direction!

First: I'm thrilled to announce the release of the "Pastors' Conversation: Navigating LGBT Issues and Questions" DVD resource. You may have had the opportunity to watch the live stream back in June 2011 or since watched that video .... but the DVD contains completely different footage. With a run-time of 2 hours (not including the additional interview footage of all the folks I interviewed), this is a thought-provoking discussion that will get you thinking and catalyze all kinds of challenging conversations. I encourage you to consider purchasing one for your pastor! And we've made that even more manageable by having our first ever DVD sale!

Second: I finished my book manuscript! There was a period of time when I wanted to just delete the whole thing and I despaired a bit that it would ever come together and make any sense. But ..... there is grace. I currently have a proposal in to a publisher and we shall see what happens. The working title of the book is:

Nuturing Generous Spaciousness: a Response to Gay Christians in the Church

Now that the book is done...hopefully I can get back to writing for this blog and the ongoing much needed updates for other sites hosted by New Direction.

Third: Relevant Engagement 2011 has come and gone. This is New Direction's annual event - and this year nearly everything that could fall apart did. The event coordinator I've worked with for 5 years had to bail a few weeks before the event. The technology team leader I've worked with for 5 years also bailed. An artistic presentation that was to make up a significant portion of the program ... you guessed it ... bailed at the last minute. None-the-less, grace abounds. We pulled things together and had an absolutely fantastic night. But don't take my word for it, check out this review of the event over at Ex-Gay Watch.

If you have some time on your hands, watch the video of the event. And if my explanations of who we are and what we do is boring .... then skip through to about the 1 hour mark and watch the interviews I did with some of my amazing friends who have been recipients of our ministry.

Fourth: My busy traveling schedule is nearly upon me ..... and that always takes up time in planning and preparing. I'm heading to Grand Rapids, Michigan later today. I'll be teaming up with Greg Gough and Diane Hartig of "Bridge Evidence Group" to do a morning session with pastors and leaders. At the end of the month I'll be heading to Vancouver for a few days to meet with more pastors. Then I head to Edmonton where I'll be leading a parish retreat for an Anglican church and doing some presentations with other churches as well. Then the first weekend in November I'll be flying to Denver to participate in the Symposium on "Homosexuality & the Evangelical Church" which is sponsored by Highlands Church. Then I'm home for a day to do laundry and pack and kiss my kids and then I head to Cambodia for 10 days.

Cambodia? Yup. Cambodia. New Direction has a dream of mobilizing folks from our networks to join in social justice initiatives. We hope to begin with partnerships with some key grassroots agencies in Cambodia that focus on two intervention and restoration strategies. The first is the work with ladyboy sex workers. These trans young men are considered the lowest of the low of Cambodian society. They face very few options other than the sex trade. However, some of the agencies there are helping the individuals who want to leave the sex trade by training them for fair trade employment opportunities. I can't wait to see for myself the in's and out's of this program and hopefully with the help of translators to hear some of the stories these individuals have to share. The second focus is the prevention, intervention and care of sexually traumatized boys. In Cambodia there is very little acknowledgement that boys can be sexually exploited and abused. There is a small agency that has worked very hard to do research, to work in partnership with other social service agencies and to intervene in the lives of boys who have been abused. This kind of work is critical, not only for the particular boys affected, but for the message that it communicates to Cambodian society. These are important steps in prevention, in breaking down assumptions and stereotypes, and bringing the necessary social change that will extend dignity and respect to ALL citizens.

I share all of these details because if you are in one of the places I'm traveling to - pop me a note, I love to make room for individual connections between presentations - and I'd love to meet up with any readers of BTG. And, if the brief things I've shared about Cambodia touch your heart, please also take the time to connect with me. I will be looking for champions, advocates and contact and connecting people to help raise awareness and get people engaged.

Three Little Pigs Re-Imagined

2011-08-22T12:25:00.002-04:00

In the latest edition of the New Direction newsletter, Pathway, I referred to Jesus’ parable about the workers in the vineyard. Some of you may remember this story from Matthew 20 where Jesus describes a group of temp workers hired to work in the vineyard. The eager beavers get hired first thing in the morning for an agreed upon daily wage. The landowner returns to the market place at approximately three hour intervals to hire more workers for a total of five times. By the fifth time, it is late in the day and those hired are the slackers – the least desirable workers. They only have to work an hour or so… something hopefully manageable in their fairly likely hung-over or inebriated state. At the end of the day, Jesus says that the landowner gets ready to pay the workers and calls up those last hired first and gives them the equivalent of a full day’s wage. Each group successively comes up and get the same, full day’s wage. The ones who were hired first, as they watched the payments, began to anticipate a bonus for their efforts. After all, they were the responsible ones – early to the market place to get hired. They were the ones who’d produced the most. They had suffered the most – bearing the heat of the day. But when they finally get to the end of the line, the landowner hands them the same day’s wage as all the other workers before them. The responsible, sacrificing, suffering through the heat, workers are pissed. Despite having agreed to work for that wage, they feel the burn of resentment and entitlement. They grumble ….. and the landowner chides them reminding them of their agreement and suggesting that they ought not feel entitled to begrudge him the freedom of applying his generosity as he chooses. He doesn’t say a thing about the lifestyle of the late workers. He simply seems to relish in surprising them with an unexpected and lavish extension of grace.

It reminds me of another parable Jesus told where the younger son – who went away to spend his inheritance on frivolous living – comes home with his tail between his legs. He’s blown it – and he knows it. But …. he’s starving and miserable and figures that even being a servant in his father’s house will ensure better treatment and a better existence than his squandering has earned him. He goes home and the father is thrilled and immediately orders a huge celebration to be prepared. At the celebration, however, the older brother …. the responsible one, the one who’d sacrificed fun and frivolity to care for the father’s estate, the one who’d suffered long hours in the fields is pissed. He feels the burn of resentment and entitlement. He begrudges the generosity of the father to this slacker, good-for-nothing so-called son. The father doesn’t say a thing about the lifestyle of the younger son. He simply seems to relish in surprising him with an unexpected and lavish extension of grace.

In citing these parables, some might assume I am making a parallel between “good” Christians (and perhaps especially the good Christian same-sex attracted persons who don’t identify as gay and don’t pursue love and intimacy in same-sex relationships) and the early workers and older brother – and gay Christians (especially those who do pursue love and intimacy in same-sex relationships) with the late workers and younger son. Such an assumption, while perhaps understandable, would be inaccurate. Making such a parallel would simply perpetuate the same old polarity and “us vs. them” caricatures that I am committed to try to dismantle.

No I cite the parables because of the themes it draws out …. themes that I believe impact any who seek to follow Jesus and embrace their own and others’ humanity. I think these themes are love, sacrifice & suffering, and the reality of adversity. Rather than categorizing people into boxes of assumption, it is perhaps more helpful to consider the ways these themes work themselves out in our lives. I think every follower of Christ needs to grapple with how love, sacrifice and suffering will play a role in their lives. I think every Christian is called to a deep understanding of sacrifice as they walk in the way of Christ. I also think that suffering is the crucible through which many Christians grow the most. These can have healthy and vital places in the Christian journey. I have also seen, however, when paradigms of sacrifice or suffering become dominant the mutation they can cause in the simple, child-like journey of faith we are called to – that I would suggest is to be essentially and predominantly built on the foundation of love. Such mutation morphs into striving, shame and a dehumanizing of the self that is inconsistent with God's intentions and grievous to him.

As I was pondering, I began to retell the story of the three little pigs in my head. I know kinda crazy. Maybe I was sleep-deprived or having some regression into childhood deficits ….. anyway …. bear with me. I trust you all remember the original story of the three little pigs who all build different houses, one of straw and one of wood and one of brick. The pigs then get assaulted by the big bad wolf who huffs and puffs and tries to blow down their houses.

Well in my reimagining of the story, I saw the three little Christians who were trying to build their own houses. One built his house out of sacrifice. It was strong and impenetrable. This little Christian took great care in building their house – making everything by hand, working hard to be able to purchase the strongest raw materials. In no time at all, the house had its basic structure and form completed. Work continued, however, as reinforcements and extra safety features were always being added. This little Christian worked very hard, long days except for the Sabbath when he intentionally laid down his tools and rested.

The second little Christian built her house out of suffering. She used found objects to build her house since she deemed herself unworthy of buying new materials. After dumpster diving, she would painstakingly haul the materials back to the building site. She worked hard on her house when she was able, but often went through deep periods of feeling overwhelmed and immobilized. The house had walls and a roof but there were lots of gaps which needed to be bolstered with stronger materials. This little Christian was consistently committed to having a safe and viable house where people could visit and be a witness to the choices she was making.

The third little Christian was a curious sort. Their house didn’t really look like a house at all. This little Christian claimed to be building a house out of love – but all you could see was a slab foundation. Some thought this little Christian was lazy – because they didn’t seem to be working very hard on their house. What some people didn’t notice, however, was that the foundation of this house had not only been built with great care, but the little Christian also carefully maintained and enhanced it regularly. What was much more obvious was that this little Christian constantly had people over at his foundation. They ate good food, grown in the gardens around the foundation. They engaged in engrossing conversation. They slept there if they needed to. They swapped stuff based on current need. And they made art: music, poetry, paintings, dances, plays, sculpture, knitting and sewing, baking and telling stories. Those who saw these activities chided them for not working harder on the house – warning of impending disaster should the big bad enemy come around. The little Christian who’d started the foundation always answered with calm, confidence that all would be well … much to the frustration of the other little Christians.

Indeed, one day the big bad enemy did come. He threatened and he accused, he played unfair hurling lies at the little Christians. He huffed and he puffed and he tried to blow their houses down. When he came to the house built on sacrifice, he stood outside and yelled and shouted that the little Christian had been selfish and lazy and recounted every moment that the little Christian had faltered in his commitment to laying down his very life for the cause of Christ. “And you call yourself a Christian….” sneered the big bad enemy. All his yelling did not knock down the house built on sacrifice – for it had been fortified thoroughly. But inside the house, the little Christian cowered. He was isolated and alone within the fortress he’d built – and no one was there to comfort, encourage or remind him that nothing the big bad enemy was hurling at him was true. He knew some other little Christians in other towns who’d built houses on sacrifice too – so he text messaged them to inquire what he should do. After all, he could find some truth in what the big bad enemy said. The reply text messages came back and they all said the same thing, “Go to the foot of the cross, lay down everything and every part of yourself that you can think of. Stay there until you have nothing left – and then pray that God will give you a good night’s sleep. In the morning, start insulating your house so that if the big bad enemy comes back, his voice will be more muffled and you won’t be as shaken by the things he shouts.” And so the little Christian fell on his austere floor, prostrate in prayer, begging God to strip him of every longing and desire that stood in the way of fully crucifying himself. He shivered in the cold as he wept, feeling like a failure, not sure what else he could do prove to God that he was committed to walk in his ways. The big bad enemy peeked through the window at the shivering, prostrate, weeping little Christian and grinned knowing his work there was done.

On he went to the next little Christian’s house. This was the house built on suffering made from the odds and ends the little Christian could find. He surveyed the place and chose his tactic. “You,” he snarled, “who do you think you are to build an entire house just for yourself. And what a shoddy job you’ve done ….. clearly if you’d really applied yourself the house would be in better shape. You don’t deserve a good home. And because you’ve clearly not worked hard enough, I’m going to teach you a lesson. I’m going to huff and puff and blow more holes in this house than you can count – and you better fix them and fix them fast and well or I’ll come back and blow this entire shack of an excuse for a house to the ground.” The little Christian dropped to her knees, head bowed and hands folded in supplication, and begged the big, bad enemy for mercy. She tried to explain the hardships that interrupted the work on her house, but the big bad enemy just shouted in her face, “Excuses, excuses …. shame on you for trying to cover up your laziness with excuses.” In a tearful whisper, the little Christian acquiesced saying, “You’re right of course, I don’t deserve a good home.” The depth of resignation convinced the big bad enemy that his work here too was finished.

Finally, the big bad enemy came upon the third little Christian. This was the one who’d built only a foundation and called it the house of love. As the big bad enemy approached a party was going on. The little Christian was celebrating the arrival of a new visitor with his other guests. The new arrival was from another town where she had lived in a house built of fear. She had been there a long time, and still looked rather gaunt and pale. But after having heard of a house where people cared for one another, created with one another, and conversed of life’s deepest mysteries and questions with curiosity and conviction, she wondered if this might be a place where she could become well. She’d been planning the trip a long time, and had had several unsuccessful attempts – but had finally made it.

When the big bad enemy approached the new arrival visibly flinched. But the little Christian who had built this foundation of love, boldly stepped forward. He flipped the secret switch and up popped a series of footholds. “Tuck your toes into the footholds!” he invited his guests. “There is a set for each of you – because you all belong here.” The big bad enemy looked around and scoffed. “You have no roof. You have no walls. How do you think you can protect yourself?” The little Christian replied, “We are rooted on this foundation of love. We are a welcome place for all who seek a place to belong. We know who we are. We know we are loved. We are free to love each other. Nothing you can throw at us can take that away from us.”

The big bad enemy thought for a moment and then began his tirade, “You are selfish (then he looked at all the people the little Christian had been hosting and realized he needed to change his tactic). You are lazy (then he looked at the well-tended garden and firmly built foundation and realized that wasn’t the best route to go either). You ignore the Bible and only focus on the parts you like ( he saw the little Christian and his guests sway back and forth from the force of his huffing and puffing – looking a bit like wind-surfers with their feet still firmly planted – and so he continued). You only focus on the attribute of love in God’s character and ignore his holiness and justice (the swaying continued – but their feet hadn’t moved one inch off that foundation of love). You twist the Bible to make it say what you want it to say – you treat God like some cosmic Santa Clause and Jesus like your best buddy (he could hear the little Christian calling to his friends, “Bend your knees, tuck in your abs and butt, breathe deeply and remember that you are loved …. Nothing can separate you from the love of God for you in Christ Jesus” ). Your relationships are a mockery of God’s holiness – always celebrating and having fun – you haven’t given up anything for Christ – you revel in sin – you flaunt disregard for God’s Word (the enemy’s voice was getting shriller and louder but as he looked at the faces of the little Christian and his guests, he saw a steely eyed tenacity staring back at him and the little Christian, with an unexpected degree of authority in his quiet voice said, “If God is for us, who can be against us? If God gave his own Son, Christ Jesus to save us, who can shame and depose us? If God builds the foundation, who can overcome it? I am my Beloved’s and my Beloved is mine! I am a child of God, deeply loved and cherished beyond all measure. You cannot throw anything at us that our God will not enable us to stand up against it!”).

And as the little Christian spoke it was like a beam of light piercing the darkness. The little Christian and his guests squared their shoulders, muscles taunt, standing firm. The big bad enemy knew that their strength would only rise as they waited on the Lord and decided to go huff and puff in a more vulnerable place. The little Christian and his friends took their feet out of their footholds, the switch was pressed and they disappeared back into the floor. Dancing resumed on that foundation of love, where no walls kept people out or kept people in. People brought the new arrival a glass of cold water and asked how she was. Visibly shaken, she said, “I can’t believe I just survived that. I can’t believe I’m still here and I’m ok. I can’t believe that my toes are tapping and that I think I actually might get up and do some dancing. Wait till I text message my friends in my old town – they won’t believe it!”

The big bad enemy circled back to the house built on suffering. The little Christian inside was scurrying around trying to patch this gap and that. She was muttering, “I’ll work harder than ever, I won’t be like those crazy dancing people who have no house, I’ll be happy and content with this house made of trash – and no one will be able to accuse me again.” And the enemy slithered away knowing that he’d done a thorough job.

Then he swung by the house built on sacrifice. He saw the little Christian inside his strong house. He was wandering around with a bit of a blank look on his face. He had no desire to go outside, even though the sun had begun to shine. He had no desire to invite his family over for a visit. He heard the singing and dancing from the foundation of love – but no longer had any desire to do any of it. He tidied up, he mindlessly worked on the insulation, and he spent his Sabbath going to church, reading the Bible and sleeping, but the light behind his eyes had grown dim, and the enemy knew his job was done.

Better is One Day in Your House ....

2011-07-17T19:16:00.002-04:00

Maybe it was because I’d caught the bug my kids were sick with. Maybe it was due to being up very early all week with our new puppy. Maybe it was PMS. Not sure what it was, but as I made the drive to another suburb of the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) to preach, my mind and heart were swirling with emotions. For some reason, I was feeling a kind of vulnerability akin to pressing on burnt skin ….. every thought seemed to prod and poke some tender point, some memory or sense, and the emotions seemed so close to the surface. I felt hurt. The pain flooding through seemed overwhelming.

For those of you who’ve not had the privilege of preaching, perhaps you haven’t often thought about the raw mess of humanity that steps into the pulpit in front of you on a Sunday morning. Preaching at the best of times is a vulnerable experience. Opening yourself to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Submitting yourself to be used as a vessel. Desiring to connect with the members of the Body and hoping they encounter the presence of the living God through your words is no trivial matter.

And so in the chaos of my thoughts and emotions on the 45 minute drive, I made my supplication, “Lord, please calm me so that I can serve this congregation faithfully.” But despite my prayers, my practiced disciplines to center me prior to preaching, and my endeavours to quiet my heart and mind in the spirit of Psalm 131, “I have calmed and quieted myself, I am like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child I am content.” …… I was struggling to enter the Lord’s rest.

I seemed to be living in the midst of Psalm 41:

Blessed are those who have regard for the weak;
the LORD delivers them in times of trouble.
2 The LORD protects and preserves them—
they are counted among the blessed in the land—
he does not give them over to the desire of their foes.
3 The LORD sustains them on their sickbed
and restores them from their bed of illness.
4 I said, “Have mercy on me, LORD;
heal me, for I have sinned against you.”
5 My enemies say of me in malice,
“When will he die and his name perish?”
6 When one of them comes to see me,
he speaks falsely, while his heart gathers slander;
then he goes out and spreads it around.
7 All my enemies whisper together against me;
they imagine the worst for me, saying,
8 “A vile disease has afflicted him;
he will never get up from the place where he lies.”
9 Even my close friend,
someone I trusted,
one who shared my bread,
has turned against me.
10 But may you have mercy on me, LORD;
raise me up, that I may repay them.
11 I know that you are pleased with me,
for my enemy does not triumph over me.
12 Because of my integrity you uphold me
and set me in your presence forever.
13 Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel,
from everlasting to everlasting.
Amen and Amen.

A number of people in my life, who I love and consider friends, had behaved in ways that hurt me. I could rationalize the potential reasons for their oversight or unawareness – but for whatever reasons the hurt seemed to resist the intellectual justifications I attempted. It hurt to feel like I wasn’t as much a part of some friends’ lives as I used to be. It hurt to know that my willingness to transparently express vulnerability had resulted in silence and avoidance. And it hurt to be told that I had been viewed with contempt by friends who felt I had become “soft” in my views and convictions. These myriad of experiences all seemed to collide together in a kaleidoscope of emotion, sadness and loss.

But…… as I entered the sanctuary, the worship team was practicing their song list. The tech team came and got me and my laptop wired and set to go. And as I settled into a chair in the empty sanctuary to again try to pray, the worship leader began to sing,

Draw me close to you
Never let me go
I lay it all down again
To hear you say that I'm your friend
You are my desire
No one else will do
Cause nothing else can take your place
To feel the warmth of your embrace
Help me find the way
Bring me back to you

You're all I want
You're all I've ever needed
You're all I want
Help me know you are near

This is a song that goes way back for me. Written in 2001, it is a song that has brought comfort and ushered me into a safe and quiet place of intimacy. I hadn’t heard it in a long time. And in those moments, as I listened and quietly sang, my heart began to drink from the source that I had been searching for all morning. In those moments, God did some healing in my heart. His presence allowed some of the hurt to retreat. I was able to receive. I became like that weaned child, quiet and secure in knowledge of being loved.

Indeed, “Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere; I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked.” (Psalm 84:10)

My guess is that some of you have experiences like this. That at times you also struggle to not be overwhelmed by the hurts that have been projected on you. That the secondary emotions of anger and resentment can nip at your heels and distract you from the source of comfort and love. In these times, we need one another …… and need the presence of the Lord to come, in sometimes surprising, sometimes simple ways, to soothe our chaotic minds and tender hearts, and remind us that our life is found in him. May you know God’s love and shalom today.

Another take on 'disputable matters'

2011-07-14T21:07:00.004-04:00

Back in May I had the opportunity to speak at a conference called Presentensions. The two main speakers were David Fitch and Phyllis Tickle. I spoke abit about Tickle in my post on authority here. I noticed, however, that David Fitch raised some questions after that particular event in his blog post entitled: Questioning The Great Emergence – What Emergents Don’t Understand About Us Anabaptists

To set the stage, consider this excerpt:

Emergents push for conversation that is inclusive. We (Anabaptists) push for inclusive conversation that moves towards resolution on the ground under Christ’s Lordship in community. Like Phyllis, Emergents believe that somehow through talking we will all converge someday. They have faith that the established church will form anew (we Anabaptists smell Christendom here). We push for local incarnation, the working out of our faith and practice and mission in local communities who live under the Lordship of Christ and His incoming kingdom. Here we not only converse, we practice conflict resolution in mutual submission to His Lordship, we encounter His presence and receive and give out of the Eucharist, we minister to the poor by being present among them offering what we have, we participate in community, submitting to each others’ gifts. We do all these things in a way that theology is worked out on the ground.
I am sure Emergent’s do all of this! Yet for us, this is the soil from which true theology shall be done. This is the soil for the renewal of the church. We therefore resist isolating issues from the church community’s life in the world. We believe you work out issues like same sex relations, pluralism, gospel etc., IN MISSION. We believe you work these issues out one community at a time and report what we have learned to the larger Body. We work these issues out to resolution because they will not go away and demand the attention of our communities who are dealing with these issues right now.

What Fitch is essentially saying is that clarity of answers is worked out in local contextualized communities as you have specific opportunity to work through particular issues. The local fellowship can then offer their earned knowledge and wisdom to the larger church body. In the case of same-sex relations, this would mean encountering same-sex attracted individuals in their community, being in relationship with them in community, working towards discernment in discipleship, and then based on the experience of the individuals who continue in the community, offer their response to the questions around integrating faith and sexuality. It would seem to me, however, that such discernment may be weighted by the perspectives and hermeneutics of a community’s leaders. One has to wonder if there is space within a local community to wrestle with diverse perspective when there seems to be such an urgency towards concrete resolution. Given the emphasis on Lordship, one might ask who’s definition of Lordship.

Fitch asks a similar sort of question when he raises the matter of disputable matters. In my presentation at the Presentensions event, I had identified some “old” questions in the conversation on faith and sexuality including causation, orientation change, and whether someone can be gay and a Christian. Among the “new” questions I suggested the church needed to consider, was the question of, “How do we wrestle through discerning what disputable matters are relevant for today? How will we learn to love and honour one another in the model of Romans 14?” Additional “new” questions I suggested were, “What does it mean to be hospitable?” “What does it mean to be a spacious community where diverse perspectives are acknowledged & seen as opportunity not problem, conduit for growth and spiritual formation?” “How can a diverse Body experience belonging, collaborative service, sharing of gifts and mutual pilgrimage?” “How can we live the way of Incarnation with those who differ from us?”

On the question of disputable matters, Fitch says,

“In Emergent conversation, “disputable matters” (Rom 14) are to be held open for discussion in perpetual conversation. The looming question for us Anabapatists is who gets the power to call something “a disputable matter”? Who gets the authority to say “this issue should be left open versus a belief/and or practice that must be dealt with for the sake of God’s justice/righteousness in the community and world? For the Anabaptist, this is the job of the community as the Holy Spirit works from the ground up. When an issue arises, we continue to work together via Matt 18:15-20 until it is resolved (this could take months or even years). It is the local community which determines whether this issue can be resolved between two people or must be resolved for the whole community in its context.”

If I look at the question of disputable matters that arises in Romans 14, there is no one with particular power deciding that the question of eating meat sacrificed to idols or the matter of holy days is a disputable matter. Rather, it is something that arises within the body. It is what it is. People who have committed themselves to be followers of the way, followers of Jesus, have different convictions about these matters largely along the lines of their Jewish or Gentile backgrounds. It would be fair to say, I suggest, they came at the question with very different hermeneutical assumptions. But Paul doesn’t lay out the correct and only way to approach these matters. Rather, he lays out principles for how to treat one another.

In the case of gay Christians disagreeing with one another about the appropriateness of committed same-sex unions, there may be similar enough experiences to be able to focus primarily on hermeneutical issues. But as with those of Jewish background and Gentile upbringing, those who do not experience same-sex attraction and those who do come from very different experiences through which to wrestle with convictions about this question on the basis of Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. And when individuals who both do not experience same-sex attraction seek to resolve hermeneutical and theological differences, it is essentially a theoretical exercise.

The way Fitch poses the question would seem to suggest that anything that can be connected to God’s justice and righteousness cannot be a disputable matter. If this is what he is suggesting, then I think the question is, “Who gets the power to decide that something is a matter of God’s justice or righteousness?” It seems to me that on matters of same-sex relations, part of the disputable matter is that some followers of Jesus consider the question to be a matter of justice and lifting oppression from a group of minorities. Other followers of Jesus see this as a matter of righteousness and counting the cost of discipleship. Is there only one way to view the matter? Or might the Body as a whole actually benefit from hearing truth in both perspectives? Might we need to hear the call for justice and lifting unChristlike judgment and exclusion from a group of people? And might we also need to heed the call to righteousness as human sexual beings – all called to steward our desires toward intimacy in fidelity?

To apply the disciplinary process of Matthew 18: 15 – 20 seems to require some assumptions to be made. The text says: “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” One of the assumptions is that someone has sinned – presumably by entering a same-sex relationship. But who has the power to judge what is sin? Those who would claim the plain reading of the text would insist that power is on their side because of their particular hermeneutical approach. But those who approach scripture differently would say that in light of cultural and historical context, the prohibitions in the 6-7 texts specifically dealing with same-sex sexual behavior do not correlate to the desire for life-long consummated companionship between two constitutionally same-sex oriented adults. So if two people hold differing views on what is sinful, applying Matthew 18 becomes a great deal more complex.

I know plenty of gay Christians who have been confronted in love according to this text and have heard of the disconnect for them, the alienation for them, and the pain for them. Matthew 18 has been misapplied to issues like sexual orientation, assumptions of sexual activity, and presumed promiscuity. Just this past Sunday in my own congregation, a woman shared a testimony in which she included a great deal of extraneous information unrelated to the actual testimony she been asked to share. One of the things she said was that drug addiction had drawn her sister into lesbianism (her term) but that just before she died she came back to the Lord and was delivered from homosexuality (again, her terms). Not only was this offensive to the gay and trans people in our congregation – but she also personally brought her version of Matthew 18 to two dear friends of mine. She told one of my gay celibate friends, who happens to also be an elder in our church, that she and her husband would pray for him to be delivered – as if he hadn’t tried everything known to man to be “delivered” from his same-sex attraction for over 15 years. Then she told a dear trans friend who is newly transitioned and still exploring faith, that if she didn’t repent from her transition and revert to living as a man she would go to hell. She apparently, in her conviction of her prophetic evangelist calling, assumed she had the power to determine what was sin and to apply her version of Matthew 18. Will an application of Matthew 18 to the sin of pride, judgment, and alienating those on the margins away from Christ lead to resolution of such radically different perspectives within our diverse Body?

When Fitch suggests that such a process may take months or years, it begs the question for me, “At what cost?” Given the tapestry of diversity that a hospitable congregation will attract, given varying levels of maturity, brokenness, potential mental health issues, differing learning styles, personality types, and ways of processing information, the expectation of finding a final clear answer on any matter judged to be connected to God’s justice and righteousness may exact a greater toll on community than acknowledging and accepting that there is a way to move forward, focused on Christ together, despite differing views. Indeed, the idea of disputable matter is more than simply interminably perpetuating conversation as some isolated intellectual and theoretical exercise. Living the reality of disputable matter, even as it relates to such a complex and important matter as sexual ethics for sexual minorities, is the stuff of community. It is the stuff of living out the kind of honouring, mutual submission and humility of which Paul speaks in Romans 14. Such commitment to one another, in the midst of the chaos of diversity, reaching to the margins and choosing to continue loving those we find difficult to love, making space for each to wrestle with God even as we together commit to worship, serve, and share the good news of Christ in our neighbourhood, surely honours God and his heart for all to be reconciled to him. Core values of fidelity, self-giving love, and honouring the image of God in one another as we all grow in the fruits of the Spirit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control are what bind us together as we journey as a community committed to glorifying Christ.

Review: the End of Sexual Identity

2011-07-13T17:54:00.005-04:00

Earlier this spring, Jenell Williams Paris published the book, “The END of Sexual Identity: Why Sex is Too Important to Define Who We Are”. I was intrigued when I heard about it – but my premonition that I wouldn’t like it very much. To be truthful, there just aren’t that many books from a Christian perspective about sexual identity that I feel I can recommend without reservation. I thought it only fair that I read the book before making any comments – and so made the amazon purchase and finished it while camping. I was pleasantly surprised by the generous and humble tone of the book.

Paris comes to the topic as an anthropologist. This is a good starting point. Additionally, she is candid about her bias and assumptions, identifying herself as a wife and mother who, along with her husband, care for preschool twins and a toddler. She says, “My life stage and family commitments shape my views on sexuality, and you’ll see that influence throughout the book.” (p. 20) She also is upfront about her evangelical background and the fact that she has spent her career as a professor in Christian colleges. She doesn’t, however, reveal her position on sexual intimacy within same-sex relationships until page 85. There she says, “My views are conservative- I’m a “sex only within marriage between a man and a woman” kind of Christian – but I am well aware that Christians of good faith disagree about the meaning of personal sexual holiness.” While I can imagine that Paris was hoping to earn a reading without the limitations of people’s opinions about her particular views on appropriate sexual intimacy, and while my sense is that her commitment to be as generous and nuanced as possible within her views is genuine, I can’t help but feel that her particular view influences the book more than any other assumption and readers would have been well-served for her to identify this back on page 20 with her other assumptions.

Paris, in a refreshing departure from typical messaging in the evangelical church, does acknowledge the reality of straight privilege when she says, “On one hand, same-sex sexualities are normalized in mass media, and public school students are taught to be accepting and tolerant of all forms of diversity, including sexual. But on the other hand, heterosexuality continues to be the privileged norm, so much so that adolescent sexual minorities experience hatred and violence.” (p. 38) And, “because sexuality has moved center stage in defining human identity, heterocentrist theology constructs a hierarchy of persons. Even humble heterosexual Christians who make every effort to be kind and gracious toward homosexuals are not really reaching out; they’re reaching down from a place of moral elevation.” (40) In an effort to demonstrate the social construct behind this privilege, Paris tells her students that she is coming out as no longer heterosexual. She claims that she doesn’t “want to get life, secure in my moral standing or gird my marriage with a social identity that privileges some and maligns others on the basis of inner desires and feelings.“ (p. 43) She goes on to say that she sees heterosexuality as a concept riddled with problems and even calls it an abomination. In an ideal world this might be a route to attempt to deconstruct a false sense of privilege that permeates much of the Christian church. And it may be an effective teaching tool to help students consider the way such privilege acts in opposition to the message of the gospel that we are all one in Christ Jesus, that there are no favourites, and that in God’s Kingdom the last are made first and the first are made last. But I have to wonder whether, in the real world of heterosexism and the elevation of such privilege in the Christian community, such a gesture has any potential to produce sustainable change. Paris herself recognizes that to attempt to strip oneself of a heterosexual identity whilst being married to an opposite gender spouse and holding the role of wife and mother is “inane”.

Paris suggests that, “The major problem for Christians with heterosexuality, and sexual identity in general, is that it is a social construct that provides a faulty pattern for understanding what it means to be human, linking desire to identity in a way that violates biblical themes. No pattern is perfect, but this one isn’t even close. And “Christianizing” sexual identity – whether by affirming or negating the morality of various sexual identities – doesn’t help, because it doesn’t address the faulty connections that sexual identity categories make between human desire and identity.” (p. 43) Paris attempts to describe the problem by initially talking about heterosexuality. One of the limitations of her premise, however, is the reductionism of linking simply desire to identity. A more fair treatment of our sexuality would consider the variety of ways our sense of sexuality influences the manner in which we navigate the world of people and relationships. To describe one’s sexual identity with the social construct of heterosexual or homosexual is not merely a statement of the direction of one’s sexual attractions. Rather, it is an attempt to authentically articulate the particular manner in which one feels completed through union with another human being. Since this is more fluid than binary for many, particularly women, it is understandable that in queer studies there is the ongoing attempt to move past black and white categories of gay or straight. While such fluidity inevitably increases the complexity of the questions of identity, fluidity itself does not alter the reality that the search for a sense of resolution in one’s sexual identity is about much, much more than the direction of desire. Opposite-sex, same-sex or bi-sexuality might be better described as the drive to overcome our aloneness by completion with another, the peculiar manner in which we express ourselves in relation to men and women at the progressive levels of intimate relationship, and impact on the manner we relate our personhood to the world around us (ie. Through our creativity, humour, stewardship, communication etc.). Such a definition does not deny the reality that sexual identity is built on social construction – but it does recognize that sexuality is much more robust than merely desire or genitalized behaviour. It could be argued that the departure point for Paris is the social construction of identity because she seems to develop a broader sense of sexuality as it connects to our humanity. She writes, “God created sexuality. People created sexual identity. For Christians, developing ethical understandings is always a task of cultural deconstruction, but grounding sexual ethics in our humanity more than in contemporary sexual identity categories would be a starting point closer to God’s created order.”

On the tired question of causation of same-sex desire, Paris offers a nuanced and inconclusive response that considers the tremendous complexity of this question. As an anthropologist, she makes a direct connection with the influence of culture on our expressions of sexual behavior. In connection to this, she has this to say about the question of sexual orientation change: “….it is all too easy for Christians to claim that homosexuality stems from “nurture”, and therefore that all homosexuals need to do is choose to change. This is a vestige of premodern Christian thought, when same-sex activity was thought of purely in terms of behavior and in religious terms: the sodomite needs to repent. That line of reasoning simply doesn’t fit the world today. Even scientists who emphasize “nurture” agree that homosexuality is not always freely chosen, or that it’s not always possible to change orientation.” (p.61)

Paris shines particularly in her treatment of sexual holiness. She writes, “When distorted, holiness is used as a synonym for morality, when it’s really about being more and more in love with God and with humanity….. When sexual morality is elevated to an idolatrous place, it diminishes people’s sense of being loved and being able to love, instead of being put in its place by love.” (p. 83) If such a Christ-centric and love based idea of holiness actually permeated the church, we would be able to navigate our disagreements with one another with much more humility and gentleness. Paris goes on to say, “Maligning those with whom we disagree, even to the point of questioning the validity of their faith or salvation, is counterproductive and damages the witness of our religion as a whole, which is supposed to be comprised of believers from many times and places united in their devotion to Jesus, not to a set of beliefs about sexuality.” (p. 85) As I have often said, the hope of uniformity on the question of committed same-sex unions is an unrealistic one. We should, rather, focus on the question of, “How now shall we live together? Pursue mission together …. Pursue justice together ….. Worship together” Paris echoes this when she says, “The world in which Christians all agree about sexual issues is an imaginary one. Love of God and neighbor, the heart of holiness, has to be practiced in the real world in the midst of these disagreements.” (p.86) Paris posits that the Christian community would benefit from a renewed focus on sexual holiness as she describes rather than using sexual identity categories as the primary grid we read back into scripture and through which we view and evaluate people. She suggests that, “In the post-sexual identity church, there’s no moral high ground for heterosexuals and no closet for homosexuals. There’s just people, each of whom is lover and loved.” (p.92) She reiterates what many of my gay Christian friends have told me, that their primary identity is that they are the Beloved of God. But while it would seem that Paris would seek to erase a secondary manner of identification as connected with one’s sense of completeness and family in intimate, committed and consummated relationship, for my gay friends this continues to be significant as they seek to live honest and authentic lives in a hetero-privileged context.

As Paris begins to talk about sexual desire, I found a sense of seemingly reductionistic thinking that is not consistent with the experiences of individuals I have been in connection with. When she speaks of sexual identity being based on feelings, the object of one’s desires, there again seems to be a disconnect with a more robust understanding of same-sex sexuality as being a more integrative part of our personhood than merely the one aspect of sexual desire. The example used, of a young man mired in promiscuity and longing for God to intervene so that he can experience intimacy in a monogamous relationship seems to minimize the potentially pervasive impact that same-sex sexuality may have on the young man’s sense of personhood. By suggesting that his alignment with a gay identity is “conforming to the pattern of this world” but is understandable since the church hasn’t provided an alternative, Paris seems to be leveling the same kind of judgment that she encouraged Christians to eschew in the first half of the book.

In speaking about the way judgment assesses sexuality, she looks at both extremes of seeking to amputate sexual feeling that the individual deems inappropriate and full affirmation of desire (in particular same-sex desires). Her suggestion is that both lack discernment, however, I think such a suggestion makes unnecessarily sweeping assumptions. Even where there is affirmation of the acceptance of same-sex sexuality and committed same-sex unions, there can still be discernment around the stewardship of desire, intimacy, relationships around values of fidelity, humility, honouring and giving to another. Paris says, “In contrast to judgment that assesses a person’s sexuality as good or bad, discernment honours the paradoxical way that blessing and suffering coexist in a holy life. Though sexual attractions and behaviors will never reach moral perfection, our sexual lives can be congruent with our spiritual lives, characterized by mercy, forgiveness, sin and restoration, love, joy, peace, patience, and self-control.” (p.107)

Paris rightly lays out a realistic portrayal of sex within heterosexual marriage. She describes situations and circumstances in which sexual intimacy is negatively impacted and rightly suggests that good marriages are sustainable even when sexual intercourse is infrequent, painful or unsatisfying. She says, “It just isn’t true that, in order to be a happy, healthy adult, a person must explore his or her sexual feelings, choose a corresponding sexual identity, and live out that identity through sexual activity.” While I agree with this sentence, I am concerned about the insinuations that arise from it. Same-sex oriented people who seek a same-sex partner with whom they can enter a life-long committed relationship are not just exploring feelings, choosing an identity and engaging in sexual activity that corresponds. Long-term committed gay couples that I know acknowledge the same reality of sex within their relationship having its disappointments, seasons, and challenges. But like any other committed person in an opposite gender relationship, they assert that their relationship is about much, much more than sexual activity. They too share life at multiple levels, being companions for one another, sharing decision-making, sharing joys and sorrows, navigating challenges together, serving others together, extending hospitality together, perhaps raising children together – or mentoring, fostering or otherwise investing in others’ lives. The glue that holds their relationships together is much more complex and multi-faceted than simply shared sexual activity. Additionally, gay Christian couples I know share a similar mature Christian understanding of sex that she describes as, “… the center of sexual love is neither orgasm (as the pinnacle of fulfillment) nor sexual feelings (as the center of personal identity). Holiness in sexuality is the same as holiness in any part of life; it’s the life of love, centered in Christ.” (p.118)

In her chapter on celibacy, Paris nuances the topic well. She is attuned to the common lack of not only a support system for those who are celibate, but the lack of plausibility in our current social and church cultural contexts. She writes, “It’s another thing, however, for a persistently same-sex attracted Christian in his thirties or forties to choose against sexual intimacy. In this case, saying no to sex means also saying no to partnership, intimacy, and all the other social and economic benefits of long-term sexual partnerships and/or marriage.” (p. 136) Paris seems to be articulating some of her own cognitive dissonance. She has stated clearly that it is her conviction that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage between one man and one woman. At times, she seems to articulate a simplistic or reductionistic idea of same-sex sexuality as being merely about the object of one’s desire. At other times, she seems to well acknowledge that same-sex oriented persons have legitimate human needs that go far beyond genitalized sexual activity. She acknowledges that same-sex attractions may not undergo radical change in direction. She seems to recognize that involuntary celibacy in a context that is unsupportive can be harmful. She then quotes Martin Luther in this manner, “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world….. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard, for you are quite a sinner.” She then says, “It would be better to sin and experience the immensity of grace than to avoid sin for fear of disapproval, banishment, or loss of employment or leadership roles in the church.” (p.137) The reader is left wondering what Paris is actually recommending. Should Christians who experience persistent same-sex attraction sin boldly? What does this look like? What effect does this have on the discernment and discipleship that Paris has taken pains to emphasize throughout the book? And how does that connect to her conclusion that imposed celibacy either within marriage or singleness can be viewed as crucible, akin to Paul’s thorn in his flesh, and therefore a means to grace?

I appreciate Paris’ final sentence at the end of the book, and truly hope others in the Christian community will heed her call. “When disagreements about same-sex sexuality are just differences, not divisions, and when we share mutual affection and bestow honor on those with whom we disagree, we’re already living beyond the end of sexual identity.” (p. 144) In the book, Paris attempts to open the conversation at the intersection of faith and sexuality with a fresh, creative, and charitable tone. She laments the prescriptive and definitive nature of social construction of sexual identities such as heterosexual, homosexual, straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual. She suggests that our sexuality needs to be redefined on the basis of our belovedness and as made up of components such as behaviors, choices, relationships, hopes, memories, marriage, physical health, fantasy, and desire that all people share regardless of the direction of their attractions. As an anthropologist, she points out that sexual identity is conceived differently in various cultural contexts and therefore supports her thesis that we can begin to navigate these questions in a different way. While I appreciate the manner in which she deconstructs the privileged status that heterosexuality has claimed and her helpful assessment of the reality of sexual fluidity, her alternatives for sexual minorities seem at times to be disconnected from the core needs I have encountered in same-sex attracted individuals. While I would agree with Paris that there can be a certain energy propelling such identification due to the very nature of minority and lack of privilege, for the gay Christians I know, their identity is not solely based on their desires.

I would suggest the onus for implementation of Paris' thesis lies with heterosexuals within the Christian community willingly laying aside heteronormative privilege in order to find common ground and a place of shared humanity with all brothers and sisters regardless of whom they find themselves most longing to be completed by in intimate relationship. Paris raises this challenge within the framework of maintaining a traditional understanding that sexual intimacy ought to be limited to a marriage relationship between one man and one woman – which one might surmise would make the invitation less threatening and more palatable. But in the end, I hold little confidence for widespread understanding and acceptance of Paris’ attempt to call the church to proactively initiate the end of sexual identity. Heterosexuals demand and enjoy their privilege far too much and find their security in such a constructed paradigm with the assertion of its biblical foundation far too deeply to truly consider that radical steps of moving past judgment and privilege that Paris calls for. Such resistance and refusal will continue to be to our impoverishment in the Christian community and to continue to perpetrate the alienation of sexual minorities from the church. A good start, however, would be for pastors and leaders of our churches and Christian organizations to pick up this book and prayerfully consider the implications for themselves and the folks they lead.

to my post-Christian friends .....

2011-07-05T13:47:00.002-04:00

This post was inspired by a note I received after the last blog ..... and since I know that at least a few of my post-Christian friends read BTG, I thought I'd put this in an open letter.

To my post-Christian friends,

I wish I could say I understand some of the tension and residue that tugs on your mind and heart ….. because I really do want to understand and enter in and be present with you. But it would be presumptuous in a big way to suggest that I do understand. I’m not gay. And I have not disrobed myself of a worldview and system of faith. And while I know the pain and disappointment of judgment, rejection and hypocrisy in the Body of Christ, my life still had enough connection with majority privilege that I could find enough of a place to feel that I belonged. I know that some of you at a deeper and more intimate place absorbed a distorted message from the church that you did not belong – and I know that this wounded you in a way that goes beyond words, beyond explanations or excuses, beyond feeble attempts to fix. When I ponder this, I am deeply grieved, outraged, overwhelmed and so very sorry.

I know that your path away from Christian faith is a complex weaving of your experiences, your hurts, anger and understandable resentment, and your intellect. I know that most Christians you encounter feel anxiety about your autonomous decision to leave the system of Christian faith – and that you can sense this anxiety directed at you in a number of unhelpful ways. I know you’ve been made to feel like a project. That it has been dehumanizing to you to feel like people only care about a transactional reinstatement of peculiar belief to ensure that you are saved and others can breathe a sigh of relief.

And I know that there isn’t a simple way to resolve this paradox that emerges in every relationship you have with a follower of Jesus. The nature of Christian faith is to want others to share it with you. The idea of loving a friend means to do everything you can to invite (which can also read persuade, convince, or sometimes even manipulate or coerce) the ones you love into your system of faith. And with post-Christian gay friends – this can become even more complicated by the way a system of faith suggests that such same-sex sexuality ought to be stewarded. This paradox makes some friendships essentially impossible – conversations don’t feel safe or free of agenda, experiences can’t really be shared or celebrated because the gulf is too great. I know that this has spelled loss in a multitude of ways.

I can only imagine what it is like to feel like you have to fight every moment you are with Christian family members or friends ….. fight in the sense of standing up for yourself, standing up for your self-acceptance and sense of identity, standing up for your relationship choices and the one you love, standing up for your worldview, philosophical foundation, personal values …. and perhaps to constantly feel like all of these things are under critique and under pressure to change. Gosh, I’m exhausted just thinking about it.

I can picture the ways you feel disrespected at times. Your intellect questioned. Your values judged. Assumptions made.

And while I have not left my faith, I have wrestled deeply, questioned outrageously and at times wondered if the thread by which I was continuing to hang on to faith would sustain me. I know the bloody carnage of butchering my own personal sacred cows – and longing for the church at large to have the guts to throw a good ‘ol beef bbq. I know a sense of hopelessness that the system is broken and there is no concrete remedy on the horizon. I know what it is to feel the fear in the pit of my stomach that others would reject me if they knew the cyclone in my mind and heart. And I know what it is, at least to some degree, to feel like I don’t fit, like I’m an alien in the church.

As I connect with others in ministry, particularly pastors, I inevitably find occasional kindred spirits – those who know well what the dark night of the soul is, those who can't always reconcile the dissonance of God’s character and sovereignty with all the crap they encounter in people’s lives and the world around them. It seems this used to be quite the secret club replete with passwords and ritualistic hand-shakes …. well ok not really ….. but hidden none-the-less. More and more, however, I hear people daring and risking to air these questions, these doubts and these struggles. More pastors realize that their humanity, transparency and vulnerability are a vital part of authentically serving and walking with others in the journey of faith. These conversations meander from doubts about God’s existence, to personal disappointment and anger with God and the church, to cognitive quandaries regarding science, miracles, interpretive labyrinths and yes, homosexuality. There is no doubt that agnostics step into the pulpits of many churches each Sunday …..sometimes cynical, sometimes grieving, sometimes genuinely wanting to love and serve, sometimes just hanging on for the paycheque to feed their family. We don’t often talk about this stuff – but maybe if we did, some folks in the pews would feel a little more understood. (Of course, others would demand certainty and confidence and security. And there are certainly pastors, leaders and Christians who truly don't have doubt or questions.)

What I would want to say to you, my post-Christian friends, is that it is my heart to simply love you. It is my heart to simply trust that if the God I continue to be in relationship with is who I believe he says that he is, then he is more than able to make himself known to you in a manner that is perfectly tailored to who you are and how you might be most able to receive him. So, I would want you to know that I do my very best to not have an agenda for your life. I’m not perfect in that, of course. My mind cannot fathom all the mysteries of humanity, eternity, and love. I am not free of my own anxieties. I am prone to cling to control – even though I think I am letting go. But despite all this, I want to know you – and part of knowing you is accepting where you are right now – as I hope that you will be able to accept me where I am right now. I want to have honest and authentic conversations – conversations that are meaningful. I want to celebrate your humanity – though it will, inevitably, be filtered through my sense that you are created in the image of God, highly valued and valuable and simply and completely the Beloved. Through our friendships, our conversations and connections ….. my deepest hope is that in the end love will triumph. Indeed, that love will win. And if along the way I can be a small part in healing the rift with the church or with Christians, or in experiencing some sense of community and belonging, or in restoring hope in some particular sense …. for that I will be deeply humbled and grateful. Because the rest, I truly believe, is God’s gig – and he sets me free to befriend and love you right where you are.

What does it mean to be welcoming?

2011-07-04T14:56:00.003-04:00

Pastors' Conversation Live Stream from Flexweb Multimedia on Vimeo.

Thank you to all who tuned in and participated with us in our pastors’ conversation. Despite some technical glitches in the live stream, I was grateful for the conversation overall and pleased to see how many are accessing the video. My sense is that some will feel that it was biased towards an affirming perspective. Perhaps it could sound that way to those who are used to only talking about this topic from the expectation and assumption that people are struggling and seeking transformation and mastery over their same-sex attractions. When this is your focus in the conversation, the priorities sound different from the priorities that emerged in our conversation.

In our conversation, we spoke more about gay Christians who have come to terms with the reality of their sexuality, embrace self-acceptance, profess faith in Christ, and are seeking authentic places to connect and belong in the Body of Christ. This doesn’t mean we don’t acknowledge that there are those who are struggling and seeking wholeness by experiencing mastery over their same-sex attractions. But it would seem to me, that Exodus and its member ministries are already focused and speaking to this group. New Direction, on the other hand, acknowledges the reality that there are many Christians who do accept the reality of their same-sex orientation, some who do identify as gay, who do care deeply about their faith, who may be wrestling with Scripture – or have come to terms with their sense of Scriptural guidance for their life, and who are looking for a place in the church.

In our conversation, we wanted to particularly address some of the tensions that arise when gay Christians attend churches that have clear boundaries limiting sexual intimacy to heterosexual marriage. But these tensions do not just affect the lives of gay Christians. Many pastors are impacted as well. Given the reality of these tensions, remaining static isn’t a particularly effective response. This is not to say that the movement that is needed must be towards a fully affirming theological stance. But it is to suggest that we need to better learn how to welcome people who are different into our church communities. Different, not only in terms of sexual orientation, but potentially different in how they approach scripture, how they view the character of God, how they engage mission, and what they prioritize in a worship experience etc. The Body of Christ isn’t meant to be a monolithic group. It is meant to be a Body with different parts, different gifts, different experiences, and different strengths. Having to navigate tension isn’t something to avoid. As we actually willingly do this together, we have the opportunity to grow together in the fruits of the Spirit – perhaps the most significant being self-control, patience and humility. We learn to be gracious with each other. We become enlarged in the capacity to be generous with one another.

Pastoring a congregation towards such a mindset of hospitality can be a challenging process however. We are accustomed to expectations of conformity in the church. This can be couched in language of sanctification or holiness – but sometimes there is a significant element of simply, “We will be most comfortable if everyone in our church acts in a certain way.” What this can boil down to is to at least pretend that we all act the same way. The kicker is, even some of our most conservative, strict church communities have their own built in exceptions. A common one is turning the blind eye to those who are not experiencing mastery or freedom in the arena of their own health stewardship. This may be noticeable by body size, onset of diabetes, high blood pressure or heart problems. Another common area is the privatization of our use of financial resources. We lack transparency with one another in relation to our spending priorities. We tolerate great diversity in levels of extravagance in housing, modes of transportation, vacations, and entertainment. Yet another is our commitment to stewardship of creation. We don’t often speak with one another about minimizing waste, recycling, energy management to name just a few. Then, of course, there are the morality issues. We know that internet porn addiction is rampant in the church – yet very few fellowships are safe enough places to invite mutual accountability and support. The alcoholics among us hide well in our pews and leadership councils. Spouses enduring abuse stay silent. Infidelities become compartmentalized aspects of our lives.

The reality is, if we did fixate on these matters in one another’s lives, our precious sense of unity might become quickly eroded. We might discover how very difficult it is to love one another through this kind of messiness. And we might realize that our patience, grace, maturity and humility need to be enlivened by the Spirit’s presence if we are to be able to remain in community with one another.

However, when we intentionally choose to welcome diversity with the recognition that we all have areas of strength and areas of weakness, that we all need space and grace to grow, that we need love and acceptance extended to us in the journey, that we are mutual pilgrims with those who differ from us, we are positioned to take the risky steps needed to begin to experience real and authentic community with one another. And it is in this kind of community that we can find ourselves most receptive to experiencing both the freedom and the increasing mastery that every Christ-follower needs in their walk of faith.

I think this is summed up so well with the ethos statement that is read at Highlands church as they gather together for worship:

Married, divorced or single here, it's one family that mingles here.
Conservative or liberal here, we’ve all gotta give a little here.
Big or small here, there’s room for us all here.
Doubt or believe here, we all can receive here.
Gay or straight here, there’s no hate here
Woman or man here, everyone can here.
Whatever your race here, for all of us grace here.
In imitation of the ridiculous love Almighty God has for each of us and all of us, let us live and love without labels.

The conversation about extending hospitality to LGBT people is really just the conversation about being a community that humbly recognizes and welcomes people who are searching for a way to embrace faith in Christ in the midst of the challenges of our lives. The conversation is about becoming friends, seeing one another’s humanity, sharing meals, being in one another’s homes, praying for one another through the joys and struggles of our every-day lives. It is quite different from a discussion trying to figure out at what point should people be removed from fellowship because of a lack of alignment with a particular set of beliefs. In our fragmented, individualistic and isolated culture, I have often articulated that church discipline, in the spirit of working towards restoration, shouldn’t be about removing people – but actually saying that, “We’re going to stick with you. You can’t get rid of us unless you remove yourself…. Because we are committed to walking with you¸ committed to trying to grow in faith together.” This is messy and difficult. It means we’ll be uncomfortable both with other people’s choices and our reactions and responses to such choices. It means we’ll feel that inevitable temptation to withdraw from one another and retreat back into an artificial unity and niceness. It means the potential pull towards power-plays will cause us to consider how to protect the purity of our church.

This doesn’t mean there will never be times when separation seems to be the best way to move forward. If a church does have a clear boundary related to same-sex unions, a gay couple may journey for a time with such a church – but may come to the point that they feel they need to experience greater freedom and space to use their spiritual gifts in service within the Body. This may catalyze a season of discernment in which the couple comes to the conclusion that they need to be in a community that will welcome their leadership contributions. My hope is that this process of discernment will be shared with the community they have been a part of. My hope is that their current pastor will have built relationships with other pastors in the neighbourhood in whose congregations a gay couple would be welcome to serve and grow in their gifts and calling. My hope is that if a transition seems to be the best next step – that it would take place in the context of relationship – both a grieving and a celebration of past relationships and an anticipation and welcome into new relationships. And my hope is that beyond particular congregations, friendships would cross such boundaries and people would continue to share their lives with one another and be willing to humbly learn from one another as we see God at work in one another.

Outside of relationship, I’m not sure there will be tangible growth beyond the polarity of many of the typical conversations on this subject. Without humility, I’m not sure there will be the kind of spaciousness that is needed to move forward. Apart from entrusting one another to the leading, correction and nurturing of the Holy Spirit, I’m not sure we’ll learn to embody the unity Jesus prayed for.

But with these commitments, with relationship, humility, and trust, I deeply pray that we, the church, will find ourselves more in step with the Spirit of Christ as we welcome diversity and embrace an ethos of hospitality.

Live Stream Pastors' Conversation Tomorrow!

2011-06-20T16:56:00.003-04:00

After months of planning and preparing, our “Pastors’ Conversation: navigating LGBT issues & questions” is finally here. At 2:00 p.m. eastern standard time tomorrow, we’ll begin our live stream and will be engaging as a panel with some of the video interviews I shot at last January’s Gay Christian Network conference. I’m so grateful to the 16 gay Christians who were willing to share with me their needs and hopes for belonging in the church and in relationship with their pastor. We’ll be shooting all day, and beyond the live stream event, we’ll be pulling together the material to produce another resource DVD to complement our “Bridging the Gap” resource for small groups and “The Youth Room has a Closet” for youth leaders and youth groups.

For some pastors and leaders, just the fact that I have used the acronym LGBT will be an indication that this isn’t a conversation they want to participate in. Recently, in fact, I was chided for using the language of “secular gay advocacy groups”. I think this is unfortunate. The apostle Paul knew the importance of contextualization and using the common language of the cultures he found himself in. And while I think it is probably unavoidable, I really hope that using a term like LGBT doesn’t prevent some pastors from tuning in.

The conversation won’t be about proselytizing or trying to convince anyone to change their theological position. Rather, the conversation will seek to create space to articulate some of the tensions that I know so many are wrestling with. Most pastors I know, the ones who truly love the people in, not only their own congregation, but also in their local neighbourhood, feel the tension every time they hang out with their gay friends. And many of them are part of systems where it isn’t really safe to talk about those tensions, those questions. Sometimes, just being able to express some of those things, to know you’re not alone, to listen to others’ experiences – perhaps those who’ve been on the road a little longer or with more experience than you do, these things can be invaluable to encourage and energize us to continue to persevere in loving people and loving the churches and denominations we are a part of – while continuing to press in to God’s heart for the people in our neighbourhoods.

Over the years I’ve met a lot of pastors who have a willingness to engage this conversation – but they aren’t sure how to do so. I’ve also met pastors who have a lot of gay friends – but none of them are Christians. So these two realities, gay friends – and pastoring a church, are neatly compartmentalized like the way I carefully separate my mashed potatoes from the corn and the corn from the roast beef on my plate. When I ask them if they know any gay Christians – often they say “no”. And if I ask them if they know any gay Christians who hold different theological positions than they do – they almost certainly say “no”. But if we are to be a relational people – and if pastors, particularly, are to be investing in building relationships and extending hospitality to all the people in their local context (which, to reveal my bias, are non-negotiable aspects of living out the gospel in my mind), then they need to have the opportunity to hear where people are at, how they are navigating their faith, hear the kinds of questions and needs that arise for them. They may not agree with everything they hear – but they will then need to think through why they disagree, how they would handle it differently, and how they could shepherd and disciple people in a manner that is humble, sensitive, and loving (which, again, I think are non-negotiables for a pastor seeking to be an ambassador of reconciliation with Christ).

So for me, the live stream conversation is hopefully a taste of a stretching but respectful conversation that allows pastors to perhaps be exposed to some stories and voices that might challenge some of their assumptions and to experience a safe environment to articulate some of the questions and tensions that arise when you enter the messy reality of real people’s lives. I also know a lot of gay Christians will be viewing the live stream. My hope is that they will be encouraged to hear pastors grappling with some of the very real matters that gay Christians need to navigate. I hope that as all the participants dialogue together using the chat room and twitter that conversations will spring up beyond just the panel – and that it will truly be a listening and learning adventure for all of us. Then when we turn to the Q & R time, I hope that we will have the opportunity to engage with some of the real dilemmas that both pastors and gay Christians face – and that while I don’t expect we will have perfect answers or solutions to these dilemmas (that’s why we call it “question & response” not “question & answer”)- that we will be able to really wrestle together with how to best live in the way of Jesus, how to best love one another, how to best create space for all of us to explore and grow in faith in Jesus Christ. Because at the end of the day, this conversation isn’t really about homosexuality. It is about being in community with one another – where there may be difference and/or disagreement, but where we are still called to love and honour one another. This conversation isn’t about what gay Christians should do. It is about how all of us together can ask and wrestle with the question, “How now shall we live together?” and “How now shall we be a witness to the reconciling love of Christ to a watching world?”

I hope you’ll join us – but if you cannot tune in, don’t worry – we will be making the video of the live stream portion available FREE online (though it may take us a couple of days to get it in working order).

To watch on Tuesday, June 21 at 2:00pm EST go to www.newdirection.ca where you’ll have a choice to watch it through UStream or on the New Direction Facebook page.

Let me also just give a shout-out to our panel participants. I am so grateful for their willingness to join us for this adventure! Thank you Mark, Michelle, Pernell and Shane!

And thank you to the 16 friends from the Gay Christian Network who were willing to be interviewed and videoed. You were articulate, you were poignant, you were passionate about your faith in Christ ..... and I am so grateful to you!

Where now is our authority?

2011-06-16T19:23:00.002-04:00

This blog has been rather quiet lately as I’ve jumped into the deep end of the pool in my doctoral studies. I love to learn and love being a student again. My cohort of nine other students is from very diverse backgrounds and I’m enjoying hearing their different perspectives. My particular research area is really about unity in diversity. As I talk with pastors, leaders and church members from many different traditions, one thing seems to be consistent. Congregations are living in tension or are simply exhausted by the conversations about LGBT inclusion. I know that there would also be congregations who would say, “What tension? What exhaustion? We dealt with this years ago and we’re moving on with our mission.” But my sense is that these groups are the exception not the norm.

Sometimes this tension is because of affiliation and loyalty to a larger denominational group that has very clear statements leaving little room for ambiguity at the grassroots level – where real people are walking together in the messy realities of life. Usually this would be where a denomination has clear statements about heterosexual marriage being the only appropriate context for sexual intimacy – and where the reflective practitioner on the ground is meeting and befriending LGBT people in the neighbourhood – folks who may be at all kinds of different places on the spectrum of belief and practice. The grassroots practitioner may feel a lot more tension than the clear denominational statement account for. It’s interesting, however, as I talk with some of my mainline friends, that there are also congregations in tension where the larger denominational body has a very open and inclusive position. Even years later, some congregations are still struggling to know how to live this out while recognizing and honouring that some members have deep and abiding convictions about marriage that are not consistent with such an affirming position. And other congregations are just plain sick and tired of the conversation. They have felt the pain and intensity of disagreement, trying to be gracious, trying to listen, trying to be patient – and feeling like all the efforts really didn’t bear a whole lot of fruit – splits still happened, people continued to ignore those they disagree with, the ideal of robust hospitality still seems a long way from the reality of their fellowship. It isn’t that such folks don’t care about LGBT people necessarily, but it may be that there aren’t actually any out LGBT people in their small congregation – and this discussion seems to have interminably sucked up a whole lot of emotional and spiritual energy.

In the midst of such paradox and weariness, very real questions remain, “How now shall we live together?” “How can we acknowledge our difference and still move forward to fulfill our mission and ministry?” “Ought we try to work towards consensus – at what point do we just move on, trying our best to love and honour one another?” “What do we do about leadership in our congregation?”

And undergirding all of these important questions is the looming, overarching question for the western church today, “Where now is our authority?”If we disagree on how we engage Scripture on this difficult question regarding the appropriateness of committed same-sex unions, in Canada at least – gay marriage, then what does that say about the authority we are submitting to?

Some weeks ago I had the privilege of speaking at an event that headlined Phyllis Tickle. Tickle is the author of the book, “The Great Emergence”. She suggests that the church has followed, throughout the course of its history, a regular pattern of upheaval and turbulence. A simple way of describing it is to say that every 500 years or so, “the church cleans out its attic and has a giant rummage sale.” Tickle says that one of the primary questions in such a time is about authority – and that not only on questions around LGBT matters – but at many levels that is the question facing the North American church today. Authority is realized by Christians in a variety of ways. For some, authority lies in the pope. Others would say the pope and the tradition behind him. Some would say, “Sola Scriptura” as the residue of the protestant reformation. Others would point to Scripture as supported by tradition, reason and experience. And if that weren’t complex and diverse enough – then there are the multiple ways in which we approach the bible. Some accuse others of using scripture like a “paper pope” rather than a living, breathing, still-revealing, full of paradox story of God. Depending on how you engage scripture, questions raised by the most current scientific research is threatening, exciting, confusing or infuriating. Questions of biblical criticism in the last few generations around context, syntax, history, linguistics hold interest and promise for some and is decried as deception, irreverent, and dangerous by others.

And in the midst of all these opinions – because really, it often comes down to opinions about what the best approach is – even though we may claim our approach is inspired by the Holy Spirit and none of the others are – is the staggering truth of the biblical and theological illiteracy of many North American Christians. We talk a lot about scripture – but do we read it? We talk about pure and right doctrine – but do we even know what kind of theological framework is being passed to us by leaders who we have been taught to never question and always submit to?

Sexuality is such a threatening topic for so many – one that elicits such strong, often knee-jerk, emotional reactions, that time and time again I see a failure to apply any degree of critical thinking to the mental gymnastics we go through to maintain our certainties. And, it isn’t only straight people. I had a phone call a few weeks ago from a young man who told me he was struggling with same-sex attraction to the point that he was essentially getting an erection every time he saw a good looking guy. The kind of Christian environment he grew up in, based on his description, presented beliefs about sexuality as 100% non-negotiable. No nuance. No differentiation between attraction, orientation or behavior. All dumped in one bucket – one big fat horrible abomination bucket. As I listened to this young man, the picture in my mind was of someone simply gasping for oxygen – just trying to catch a breath – but suffocating. He affirmed utter commitment to the beliefs of his church – but was filled with self-loathing at the anonymous sexual encounters that were becoming a more regular part of his life. My heart broke. As I gently tried to begin to introduce some thoughts that might just give him a bit of breathing room, I could feel his anxiety increase. In that kind of system, to suggest simply differentiating between attraction, temptation, lust and behavior seems like “trying to make excuses”, “not being faithful”, “trying to short cut being obedient” ….. and the dread of daring to question the system, even if such a system is killing you, is overwhelming. A system such as this seems to have so much power it is hard to know how to even begin to introduce baby steps toward a more generous spaciousness.

What is our authority? Is such a system our authority? Is that really what God wants from us – to be so fearful and shameful that we cannot ask hard questions? Isn’t God big enough to sustain our questions, our doubts, our fears, our grabbing his lapel and pleading for a way forward where there is space to breathe? Abraham trusted God was big enough. Jacob trusted God was big enough. David trusted God was big enough. Job trusted God was big enough. Paul trusted God was big enough.

The hope that we will all come to a uniform understanding of scripture is an exercise in futility. So the idea of “sola scriptura” as some magic bullet to unity and understanding God’s guidance for our lives needs to be understood beyond the reductionistic literalism so many seem to be clinging to. The question isn’t just “should gay Christians feel free to marry someone of their own gender” – the question is, “how can we create space, the foundation of which is love not fear, where we can engage body, mind and spirit with the living Word of God through the leading of the Holy Spirit through written text, the legacy of devoted disciples who have gone before us, the good minds God has given us, and our journeys of faith, both as individuals and as communities in specific contexts?”.

I’ve been watching some of my denomination’s synod proceedings via live stream this past week. Delegates get to make speeches about the various issues that have come before this governing body. It was so paradoxical to me to hear some speeches that reverberated with this kind of courageous commitment to space, to explore, to expect God to keep showing up in new and specific ways for us in this time and in this place. But also to hear other speeches that quivered with fear, some speakers even explicitly saying they were fearful. Speeches extolling a rigid, non-negotiable approach to engaging the ways God is revealing his authority to us. Having come from such a fearful place into a more spacious place, all I can say is that I am grateful that my view of God is bigger, my own heart is bigger, and ultimately my hope for the church and for our world is bigger. This isn’t about a particular belief related to sexual ethics, creation / evolution, piety or any other much debated topic – for me it is about learning to breathe, to breathe deeply, and to rest and trust more fully in God’s grace to lead me in the paths I need to go.

Phyllis Tickle suggested to the audience that we will be entering a 2,000 year period of the Holy Spirit. I like this idea – though I do hope Jesus returns before that. I like it because it is alive, it is real, it has the capacity to move, respond – a certain fluidity if you will. Let’s face it, without the Holy Spirit we wouldn’t even have a bible. The Holy Spirit inspired the authors, the Spirit preserved the story through generations of oral tradition, written scrolls, fragments etc., the Spirit led those who translated, he was with those who chose what would be included in the canon, he continues to lead scholars, expositors, and all those who seek to interpret this story. This history is not without error – because we’re part of the story too – and we are most definitely not infallible. But the Spirit continues to lead us into truth, continues to direct, correct, convict and teach.

So what is the Spirit saying to the churches? What is the Spirit saying through our LGBT brothers and sisters? What is the Spirit saying to our LGBT loved ones? What is the Spirit saying about unity and diversity? What is the Spirit saying about how we shall now live, serve, minister and reach out together?

This is the focus of my call, my vocation and will be, I expect, my life’s work – as incomplete as it may be.

Well, that and hopefully a 200 page thesis in the next couple of years.

The Challenge of Pursuing Justice

2011-05-19T18:09:00.003-04:00

This cartoon by my friend David Hayward, who posts his blogs and cartoons over at nakedpastor.com, captures the tension and emotion I’ve been trying to process in light of several recent realities.

Many of you will be aware of the online petitions that madly circulated the last few days of the Ugandan parliament deliberations. The dreaded anti-homosexuality bill that had been simmering in the background for the last couple years was front and centre with a very real possibility of it being passed into law. For those of us who have been following these developments, who have prayed and interceded with tears for LGBT people in Uganda, this was our nightmare. And we were grateful for the hundreds of thousands of people who typed their name in solidarity with those calling for the only humane response to this bill: its defeat. There was a triumphant media blitz proclaiming just such defeat when the parliament did not have time to vote on this and a few other controversial bills. But perhaps others, like myself, who are close to these issues, who have followed it when it wasn’t in the spotlight, felt a sense of unease with the dramatic proclamations of victory. For me, this unease came with knowing that no change had been accomplished in this turn of events. Life is still hell for LGBT people in Uganda and other parts of Africa and the world. Hearts had not changed. Minds hadn’t even been changed. And with the bill out of the spotlight, what action would the hundreds of thousands of people who signed their names take on behalf of LGBT people who face oppression and injustice? This unease became more tangible with the report that the bill will return to the 9th parliament of Uganda when it is convened.

Some of you may have also followed the controversy that has surrounded Jim Wallis and his Sojourners organization. Sojourners has been working for social justice for decades. They have managed to build relationships and credibility across a wide swath of the Christian community in their fight against poverty and racism. To many, it would seem a no brainer that Sojourner would be an appropriate place to run an ad that advocated a hospitable welcome to LGBT people. So, when Sojo’s turned down the Believe Out Loud request to run their video in their advertising sidebar, many were shocked, confused and felt a sense of betrayal.

The video, itself, seems to be advocating a message that any follower of Jesus should be able to support. The organization who created the video, however, does have a clear position stated as: A partnership of the country’s leading LGBT advocacy groups, both religious and secular, Believe Out Loud seeks to accelerate the existing Christian movement toward LGBT inclusion and significantly increase the number of local churches and denominations that are fully-inclusive of LGBT individuals, both in practice and policy. In doing so, we seek to create a widespread Christian movement for LGBT equality in the church and in broader society.

This clear goal of advancing towards LGBT inclusion and equality will be interpreted by many with a traditional sexual ethic as inconsistent with their understanding of Scripture’s guidance on these matters. And here’s the rub for Sojo – they have deliberately sought to not align with one position or another on LGBT matters because of the polarizing effect that would have on their desire to mobilize their constituency on matters of poverty and race. Bottom line is – their ability to steward influence and raise money for the advocacy issues they have prioritized would be compromised by aligning with one side of the polarized debate on LGBT matters. The question is, how can you advocate for dignity and justice for one group – and seemingly ignore the need for dignity and justice for another? To adapt the words of Desmond Tutu, if I diminish the need for justice for one group, I diminish the pursuit of justice for all groups.

Now some will argue that advocating for hospitality for LGBT people in the church is not a justice issue – because they do not even acknowledge the reality of LGBT people (aka – there are no homosexual people, only heterosexual people with a homosexual problem). Others will refer to the vague, fear-based notion of ‘the gay agenda’. And inevitably, people with such perspectives are unlikely to want to engage in dialogue seeking common ground. Thus the power plays and politics and boycotts rule the day. And the ideal gives way to priorities made in the mess and frustration of reality. Do you sacrifice justice for a small minority group in order to continue to garner influence for the betterment of a larger marginalized group? At what point is your internal integrity at stake because at a foundational level it is the value of our shared humanity that is compromised when we need to sacrifice justice for one group for another?

Lest anyone think these are simple and clear-cut decisions, I’d urge all of us to refrain from quick judgments and pronouncements. The complexity and paradoxes and systems that inform these matters confound the wise and experienced and principled and active. If anything, such challenge ought to humble us.

It has led me to ponder, again, the distinction between activism and advocacy. In previous posts, I’ve suggested that activism is about issues and advocacy is about people. I’m not sure if that would be a universally held distinction – but it has helped me. To add to this, I think activism calls for a holy impatience. Activists are motivated by an incredible sense of urgency. They want to get things DONE. I might suggest that advocates are actually called to cultivate patience. They know that the process of heart and mind change is slow. They know systems don’t change overnight. They understand that the ideal of all issues being equal rarely is workable in the chaotic reality of working towards paradigmatic change. We need activists. And we need advocates. And sometimes the two are not going to understand each other and might even see their work at odds with each other. But I think we will all benefit when we see the role each plays. And some are called to the huge challenge of embodying both activism and advocacy and living in the tension of holy impatience while cultivating patience. They need our prayers and our support - for that is not an easy road to travel.

But none of this theorizing relieves the LGBT person sitting in an African prison, in conditions we in the west can’t even imagine. It doesn’t help the lesbian who is struggling to overcome the trauma of corrective rape. It doesn’t change the desperation of a homeless LGBT youth who is getting to the point of turning to prostitution to survive. It doesn’t silence the bully. It doesn’t reverse job discrimination. It doesn’t nullify prejudice of landlords refusing LGBT tenants.

And ignoring these matters, or justifying our complacency because there are more pressing issues, or telling LGBT to just hang in there these things will be addressed eventually is unacceptable and inconsistent with the character of Christ. Even for those who oppose civil rights for LGBT people, let them hear these words of Miroslav Volf, “Reject the love of enemy, and you undo the Christian faith”.

In times when it is easy to be overwhelmed by the largeness and complexity of the issues, remember that change comes one step at a time. Begin by making more room in your own heart for those who differ from you. Be that intercessor who stands in the gap. Have that conversation in your church about becoming more tangibly hospitable to anyone from your neighbourhood. Train yourself to remember that the diminishment of any human being diminishes you – and so catch yourself when the judgmental thought comes, that look of disdain crosses your face, that desire to avoid rises up in your heart. Speak out at your work place or school when you hear language that excludes or demeans. Read that link your LGBT friend sends you. Don’t tune out. Don’t forget. Don’t distract yourself. Stay present – and in being present be the change you want to see.

Personhood

2011-05-19T10:27:00.003-04:00

To what extent does our experience of sexuality interact with our sense of personhood? This is a question that has come up in conversation and times of reflection. As I navigate the variety of ways this conversation around faith and sexuality is articulated in different parts of the Christian community, I often encounter what has increasingly seemed to me to be a reductionistic view of sexuality.

When people talk about same-sex oriented people there are a number of ways this reductionism emerges. Some people would refute the idea of same-sex orientation altogether. In their minds, the experience of same-sex attraction is something that is triggered by predisposing factors - and once those predisposing factors have been dealt with, the individual should be free to move towards a redeemed (i.e. heterosexual) sexuality. This may be what some individuals experience - though it may be argued that they did not have a same-sex orientation to begin with. But it does not fit the experience of all those who experience predominant and persistant same-sex attraction.

Others view same-sex orientation primarily or solely through the lens of sexualized attraction. While they may differentiate between orientation and sexual behaviour in theory, often these lines get blurred to the point that as they talk about gay individuals assumptions about sexual activity emerge. Or there is the sense that the sexualized element overshadows any other aspects of that person's sexual identity.

One pastor told me that his understanding was that gay men lacked the potential for committed monogomy in their partnerships. He hadn't encountered any people who had demonstrated anything different to him - but by his own account he did not know any Christian gay couples. From others, I regularly hear presumptions about sexual behaviour that seem outlandish and therefore carry the perception of being particularly immoral.

For those who have relational experience with gay friends or family members, there may be a more nuanced understanding that same-sex sexuality is not just about sex. There is a recognition that there are psychological, emotional and spiritual aspects of this experience of sexual identity. They know that their same-sex attracted friends long to be completed by a partner of the same gender in a more wholistic sense than merely a physical sexual relationship. They perhaps glimpse that same-sex sexuality is a unique way of navigating the world of people and relationships regardless of whether an individual is in a same-sex relationship or sexuallly active or not. Inherent in these glimpses is the intuitive sense that the manner in which an individual expresses themselves, creatively, through humour, and other forms of self-expression including worship, cannot be divorced from the reality that they are same-sex oriented. Such friends would sense that if their same-sex attracted friends needed to hide or be silent about this aspect of themselves, they may well lose connection to essential aspects of themselves.

Such an understanding can be hard to articulate in conversation with other Christians who are confident and certain that same-sex sexuality is nothing more than a deception, a charade, or a rebellion against God's created order. Some hold the opinion that an individual who honestly describes themselves as gay should receive no encouragement, resources or support in living an authentic expression of their sexuality (we are not speaking here about sexual relationships - but only about the honest disclosure of experiencing the reality of a same-sex orientation). Others believe that such withdrawal of care is harmful to a same-sex oriented individual. These two different perspectives tend to be very polarized and distrustful of the other. It can be a real challenge to find common ground where there is such a basic disagreement about the withdrawal or the offering of encouragement and support.

This is where a lot of disconnection happens in the current conversations around faith and sexuality. Ironically, such disconnection isn't even about the question of the appropriateness of same-sex relationships. It is something much more intrinsic, intimate and personal. And that is the disagreement over whether there should be acknowledgement, validation and honouring of the reality of same-sex orientation and the influence it has on an individual's sense of personhood or whether such validation should be discouraged for fear it will reinforce a state of being that is inconsistent with God's design.

To complicate matters further, different individuals have different experiences with being same-sex attracted. For some, not being validated was, in their minds, a good thing. For them, same-sex attraction seemed to be significantly attached to traumas and deficits - and with the experience of healing and resolution, such individuals found that same-sex attraction ceased being a dominant factor in their sense of self.

For others, however, lack of acknowledgement and space to express honestly their sense of personhood as intimately connected with their experience of same-sex orientation caused great harm. Some recount a sense of becoming shut-down in their emotions - unable to feel much of anything - and losing touch with any sense of desire, creativity or joy. Many describe simply going through the motions in worship and times of prayer - no longer able to connect intimately with God. It is not uncommon to hear accounts of profound depression and suicidal ideation or attempts.

So, what are we to conclude? What is the best approach? Our experience at New Direction tells us that the best approach is to encounter each person as a unique individual. To provide a safe and spacious environment in which they can express, as honestly as possible, where they are at in experiencing their sexuality as part of the bigger picture of who they are. Such honest expression ought not be feared. Inevitably, each individual still needs to wrestle with what their convictions will be about involvement in relationship and the expression of sexual intimacy. But we believe that people will be in a much better position to actually do such wrestling when they feel that they have had the autonomy to express their sense of sexuality and personhood without judgement or the assumption of externally imposed definitions.

Such an approach requires patience - for this isn't a quick process. It requires humility - for no one can step into another's skin and define their personhood for them. It requires gentleness - for such intimate knowing is a vulnerable and sensitive place. It requires encouragement - for we are created to be in relationship, called to love and support one another, and fashioned to be interdependent as expressions of God's love and acceptance one to another. And it requires trust - for it is the Holy Spirit who teaches, corrects and helps us to journey towards maturity in faith and obedience.

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well. Ps. 139: 13, 14

Note: this article was previously published in the Summer 2011 edition of Pathway, the newsletter of New Direction. If you do not receive this quarterly communication but would like to, please email info(at)newdirection.ca

The Space Between

2011-05-05T11:04:00.002-04:00

This idea of "the space between" is something I've been pondering for a while. Terri, who did some initial work on our arts initiative, coined the phrase as the title for our upcoming new arts website. The thought was of the space between you and the frame (ie. the frame around a painting)- the space where you consider your own interpretation, your own imagination, the ways your own creativity, emotions and spirit are inspired by the art within the frame. This space is the space for community - for shared conversation, for connection and collaboration. It is also the space in which we have the opportunity to honour the Image of the Creator in ourselves and others. This space between is a powerful place - a place bursting with potentiality.

But beyond the arts initiative, this picture of the space between has captivated me. This past Easter weekend, I spent time reflecting on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Friday or Sunday - these are the days we tend to focus on - at least us less-liturgical protestants. But Holy Saturday is the day that marks most of my life. Most of my life is somewhere between the pain and agony of Good Friday and the joyful victory of Easter Sunday. I live in the space between.

I wrote this the other day - and thought it might touch some of you too:

The space between is the place we weep…

It lies between painful reality

and actions we would regret.

It calls to us and haunts us by its inaccessibility…

it beckons as a beacon of hope.

This space between is unpredictable at best

it is the place we are simply called to be.

Only the courageous and valiant persevere

in its pursuit -

this space between.

After chaotic battles of mind and heart

of tradition, of expectation, of legislation

The weary warrior caught in paradox

falls to bowed knees and weeps

for what else can she do but be.

Doctoral Studies, Reflective Practitioners & Pastor's Live Stream Event

2011-05-04T16:29:00.007-04:00

As some of you know, I started work on my doctorate degree last week. I’ve always loved to learn and I am excited after 12 years to be back in school. It is a three – four year program of studies that are meant to coincide with continuing on in your ministry position. So while I will continue with my work through New Direction, I hope to be rejuvenated and challenged in the course of my studies as well. My thesis project, while likely to undergo some refinement yet, will focus on building a model for congregations and Christian organizations to move towards a posture of generous spaciousness. This posture is intended to aid faith communities in acknowledging diversity in their midst and embracing the spiritually formational opportunity of learning to embrace the tensions such diversity inevitably creates. These tensions include, but are not limited to, those between the autonomy of the individual and the call into community; the power of conviction and the humility by which we hold such conviction; the willingness to endure being misunderstood and not taking offense; the reality of different expressions of faithful discipleship; and the diverse priorities of people in the conversations integrating faith and sexuality.

There is nothing new under the sun. So I don’t expect to be developing anything that hasn’t already been worked on in other contexts. However, it is my hope that work on such a model will give pastors and leaders concrete support in shepherding their communities through the landmines of tension and diversity in a manner that is pastorally faithful and helpful and that ultimately builds up and strengthens the Body of Christ both within its fellowship and in its mission to their context.

The first week was mainly a time of orientation and getting to know our cohort learning group. But already, in a few of the sessions I could feel the excitement of applying some of my learning to this area of engagement I am so passionately committed to. One of the comments of the director of the program was about educating the reflective practitioner. This is the intention of the program I am in – taking those with ministry experience, encouraging them to reflect on their experiences, and deepening their insight through further education and application.

In educating the reflective practitioner there are three stages of growth. In the first, the practitioner reflects on a given action. In the second, there is a knowing in action. And in the third, there is reflection in action. What this means is that initially, a practitioner does something and afterwards, hopefully, reflects on it. This builds towards the second stage where the practitioner takes the reflection and uses it as knowledge in their subsequent action. Finally, this experience becomes like second nature in allowing the practitioner to respond with discernment in action. A concrete example would be a pastor who encounters an LGBT person in their congregation or neighbourhood context. In those encounters they do the best they can to converse in a manner that is consistent with their values for ministry. Inevitably, as they reflect on these encounters there will be some learnings and understanding that they are able to add to their ministry experience. At this stage, they may realize some deficits in their ability to navigate these conversations and reach out for some additional input and help from such resources as websites, other pastors with more experience, books etc. Then in subsequent encounters, this pastor will be able to bring some of that experience into their conversations. Finally, after having many such encounters and conversations, they will be able to be responsive to individual and unique needs because their general reflection and knowledge gathering will have prepared and equipped them for such discernment. It struck me as I sat listening to this general description of educating the reflective practitioner, that for many pastors they simply don’t experience enough encounters with LGBT people to move through these stages. They don’t have enough experience and knowledge to get to the stage of being reflective IN action. Not only that, but I have encountered a lot of pastors who presume that they know enough to be reflective in action. They have some gay friends, have read some books on the topic, and feel like they know what they need to know. Unfortunately, given the degree of complexity and uniqueness of each individual journey, such presumption limits the pastoral effectiveness of being able to be responsive. It also means that for many pastors it is difficult to really be aware of the context of their own beliefs and feelings, to critique or deconstruct personal assumptions, and to assess alternative perspectives without interference from their beliefs, feelings and assumptions. This kind of reflective process happens when a practitioner has had the opportunity to reflect on action through varied experiences, to apply knowledge (from both reflection and accessing resources) in additional ministry experiences, and finally to be responsive (uncoloured by their own assumptions or feelings) in diverse experiences.

What does this mean? Well, it would be helpful if more people were able to be honest and upfront with their pastors about the reality of same-sex attraction in their lives. I understand that it does not always feel safe to do so or that the demonstrated consequences hinder such disclosure. However, the only way that pastors will move towards becoming reflective IN action is if they have the opportunity to engage different people with different experiences and move towards a non-threatened, open, generous capacity to respond without assumptions, feelings and rigidness affecting their response. Note – being reflective IN action does not presume a particular theological position. It is simply describing a pastor who will have the capacity to embody humble generosity in walking with an LGBT person. So if more people came out to their pastor – then more pastors would grow in being able to respond well. That’s kind of a no-brainer – but also somewhat idealistic.

It also means that pastors need to realize that to grow in their effectiveness to engage in this area of ministry, they need to open their lives and hearts to more LGBT people. It isn’t just gay people who need to come out – it is the pastors who need to step out and invest their lives in friendship with LGBT folks.

Pastors, generally speaking, need to be a bit more humble about the need for more experience in this area and not hide behind excuses of being too busy, or knowing everything they need to know because they have 2 gay friends and have read “Love is an Orientation”. While it is understandable that many pastors are busy people, being teachable, open and eager to grow in experience should be a base-line posture when considering this area of ministry.

It also means that more resources need to be made available that are relational and narratival in nature. The truth is, not every pastor is going to have the opportunity to grow through personal experience pastoring LGBT people. But they can benefit from hearing other pastors’ experiences and even more from the first hand accounts of LGBT Christians navigating journeys of faith in community with the church.

This is why New Direction is sponsoring a FREE live stream event on Tuesday, June 21 at 2:00 pm EST. I will be hosting a panel of three other pastors as we engage video interviews with a number of gay Christians. The first hour will be facilitated discussion with the panel – then the second hour will be engaging the questions and comments from those who are joining us online. We want this to be a time set aside for reflection on action. We also hope it will be a time for some new knowledge that can be applied. And we hope to benefit from those who have journeyed the road long enough to be reflective in action. This means we will hear about personal transformation as attitudes and assumptions have been critiqued, various perspectives considered, and a willingness to risk and engage modeled.

The pastors on our panel will be:

Mark Tidd ~

Mark is the pastor of Highlands Church in Denver, CO. He and Highlands made the decision to become an affirming and inclusive church at significant cost. Since that decision Highlands has grown, has a vibrant sense of mission, and embodies hospitality to all people.

Michelle Top ~

Michelle is co-pastor with her husband Ed at the Lantern Church in Calgary, AB. Michelle lives an incarnational model of ministry as she lives, works, plays and participates in her local neighbourhood. Along the way, God has brought lots of LGBT friends into Michelle’s life and she finds herself navigating some of the inevitable tensions of grassroots ministry in a larger denominational context.

Pernell Goodyear ~

Pernell is teaching pastor at Hillside Church in London, ON. Pernell spent ten years building a missional community in downtown Hamilton where people from all walks of life found a place to belong. Pernell has experience across denominations, is a coach for planters, and facilitates learning through the Cultivate network.

The live stream event will be just one part of the filming we do with this group and the 20 gay Christians I had the joy of interviewing. We’ll spend the rest of the day filming additional segments with the final result being New Direction’s next DVD project.

Please consider joining us for this FREE live stream event. You can use this Facebook event to stay updated on current details, to RSVP, AND to let others in your networks know about this opportunity. Spread the word and contribute to increasing the level of reflection on and in action so that we can all participate in nurturing safe and spacious places for LGBT people to explore and grow in faith in Jesus Christ.