Bridging The Gap

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compassion as Justice-Love

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But not everyone sees it that way.

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

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

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

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

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

-wg

Sexual Ethics & Generous Spaciousness: Part 3

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

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

Read Part 1 and Part 2

An Ethics of Generous Spaciousness:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application to the Question of Gay Marriage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

-wg

Sexual Ethics & Generous Spaciousness: Part 2

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

Read Part 1

Applying Sources and Norms to the Question of Gay Marriage:

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

Experience:

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

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

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

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

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

Tradition:

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

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

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

Reason:

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

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

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

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

Scripture:

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

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

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

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

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

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

-wg

[1] Farley p.182

[2] Ibid. p.190

[3] Ibid. p.190

[4] Ibid. p.194

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

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

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

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

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

[10] Ellison “Making Love Just” p.20

[11] Ellison “Making Love Just” p.20

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

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

[14] Presbyterians and Human Sexuality 1991

[15] Ibid. p.55

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

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

Sexual Ethics & Generous Spaciousness: Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-wg

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

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

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

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

[5] Farley. p.157

[6] Farley p.195

The Place of Lived-Experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider these words from Richard Rohr:

Experience Trumping any Scripture or Tradition:

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

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

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

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

-wg

No Position?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-wg

What's your Starting Point? Part 4

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

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

Read Part 1 and Part 2 and Part 3

Concluding Reflections:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-wg

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

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

What's your Starting Point? Part 3

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

Read Part 1 and Part 2

A Trinitarian and Incarnational Foundation for Sexuality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next Post: Concluding Reflections

-wg

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

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

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

[4] Philippians 2: 6-8 NIV

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

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

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

[8] Ibid. p. 168

[9] Ibid. p.161

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

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

What's your Starting Point? Part 2

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

A Challenge to the Creation Order Starting Point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Ibid. p. 179

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[9] Ibid. p.199

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

What's your Starting Point? Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creation Order:

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

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

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

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

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

Next post: A Challenge to the Creation Order Starting Point

-wg

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

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

[3] Ibid. p.19

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

[5] Ibid. p.45

[6] Ibid. p.74

[7] Ibid. p. 70

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

[9] Ibid. p.21

[10] Ibid. p. 27

[11] Grenz p.230

[12] Grenz p.236

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

Experiencing True Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-wp

Nurturing Generous Spaciousness in 2013!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-wg

next-generation-truth-telling

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

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

Homo"phobia"~ by Renate Gritter

Phobia, what does it mean?

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

What is fear? A thing that makes you scared

Well then what is homophobia?

The fear of homosexuals?

I think not.

I believe that it is so much more than that.

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

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

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

I think homo-phobia is not fear at all

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

That threatens the free

That closes them out

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

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

Some have minds, that restrict,

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

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

they are not wanted

they are "feared".

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

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

-wg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-WG

Musings for Moving Forward...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-WG

"It is what it is"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-WG

Prophets of Peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please. Be. Still.

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

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

Note: go here to purchase Vanier's book

-WG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's sad.”

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

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

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

So, what then can we do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-WG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-WG

Grieving, Accusation & Tough Questions for God

2012-07-20T15:25:00.000-04:00

I haven’t written much about HIV/AIDS on this blog for a few reasons. First, I don’t feel like I have the knowledge to write helpful posts on the topic. Second, while this is an important topic, it hasn’t been a particular focus at New Direction. And third, I do not want to perpetuate the stereotype that HIV/AIDS is a gay disease. Hopefully most people recognize by now that HIV/AIDS is transmitted in a number of different ways and is a risk that crosses all social, economic, racial and orientation lines.

But we received an email today that offered the opportunity for me to respond:

“I have used your resources in the past when my brother came "out" to my parents. I am SO thankful for your organization!

My brother was recently diagnosed as HIV+ and I wondered if you can direct me to any resources that deal with this? Not so much the medical side of things, but questions like, "Why is God punishing me?", "Why did God allow this to happen to me", "Can I be forgiven?”

When I read an email like this, a number of things flash through my mind. I remember the first time I heard about AIDS. I was in a phys. ed. class at my Christian high school. It was the mid-eighties. A video clip was shown in which a gay man was talking about his illness. One of my classmates burst into tears and rushed out of the room. The man in the video was her uncle. She did not know that he was gay or that he had, since the video’s release, died of AIDS. She’d been told he died of cancer. I can remember the shock going through the room. And I remembered at the time how angry I felt that this girl’s family had been too embarrassed to be honest with her and tell her the truth. I didn’t know that much about homosexuality back then, but I knew enough to be outraged that someone’s family would be so ashamed of them as to lie.

And I remember hearing about outrageous things Christian leaders said at the height of the AIDS crisis about God’s punishment and judgment. Even though still a teenager, I remember thinking that this couldn’t be true. If God punished people for their sin by inflicting disease, then people who were greedy in the face of the Ethiopian famine should have been struck down too. I could sense that those Christian leaders on TV were speaking with an attitude and tone that didn’t seem very Christ-like to me.

I also remember hearing from so many individuals, from Exodus circles, to Gay Christian network connections, to gay people through social media, and personal friends, who expressed pain over these very public judgments many years after the original utterances. The sense of condemnation ran so very deep.

I heard leaders, including myself, who spoke out and challenged the church to reach out with love and compassion after having missed such a tremendous opportunity when AIDS was creating such alienation and panic. The church got it so terribly wrong then – but we needed to step up and take advantage of the opportunities in front of us today to reach out and engage LGBT people with the love of Christ.

As these thoughts flash through my mind, I can’t help but feel deep sadness that a young man, raised in the Christian community, is reaping the failure that the church sowed nearly 30 years ago. Of course, when anyone receives such an overwhelming diagnosis, whether it is HIV or some other devastating disease, it is normal to ask the kind of questions the email raises. In many ways, these are the common questions of grief. But I don’t know how many people diagnosed with cancer ask, “Can I be forgiven?” as part of the grieving process.

Grieving is an individual and unique process. There is no formula or recipe to get through the difficult process of coming to terms with loss. While there are some general descriptive stages that help us to understand the grieving process, they are not linear or predictable progressions.

When grieving, people will go back and forth between stages. These stages include:

· Denial & Isolation: Often, the first reaction is to deny the reality of the situation. It is a normal reaction to rationalize overwhelming emotions. Denial is a common defense mechanism used to buffer the immediate shock. This is usually a temporary response that carries us through the first wave of pain.

· Anger: As the masking effects of denial and isolation begin to give way, reality of the situation and its pain re-emerge. Usually, we are not ready to face the pain. The intense emotion is deflected from our vulnerable core, redirected and expressed instead as anger (which is almost always a secondary emotion). The anger may be directed at almost anything or anyone – and may not seem to make sense. In our minds, we know this shouldn’t be the focus of blame. But emotionally, we feel resentment and don’t know what to do with it. Often we feel guilty for being angry, and this makes us more angry. When we find ourselves in this angry phase, it is important to try to be present to the anger, to remember it is a cover for our pain, to be gentle with ourselves, and to give ourselves the time we need.

· Bargaining: The normal reaction to feelings of helplessness and vulnerability is often a need to regain control. We can find ourselves going over and over in our mind what we might have done differently that might have influenced the current outcome we are facing. We may make a deal with God in an attempt to postpone the inevitable. All of this is just another way we try to protect ourselves from the painful reality we are facing.

· Depression: There can be two types of depression experienced when we are grieving. The first one is a reaction to practical implications relating to the loss and result in feelings of sadness and regret. These feelings may be eased and managed by obtaining clarification and reassurance. Helpful cooperation and a few kind words from those around us can be really helpful. The second type of depression may be more subtle and, in a sense, perhaps more private. It is our quiet preparation to in the face of loss. Sometimes what will serve us best is a hug and simply knowing that someone is present with us.

· Acceptance: Depending on how much time people have for grieving, this may be an unreachable gift. It should be noted that it is not necessarily a mark of bravery to resist the inevitable and to deny ourselves the opportunity to come to a place of peace. Acceptance may be marked by withdrawal and calm. Acceptance is not a period of happiness but of rest.

Navigating the reality of loss is ultimately a deeply personal experience — nobody can make the process easier for you or be fully able to understand all the emotions that you’re going through. But others can be present with you and offer a sense of comfort. The wisest thing to do is to allow yourself to feel the grief as it comes over you. Resisting it only will prolong moving through the stages and coming to a place of rest and peace. Grief is messy and chaotic – there isn’t anything pretty about it. Appearances should be put on the back shelf, they have little to contribute to moving through this process towards healing.

Unfortunately, many people do not know how to simply be present or offer comfort. They may also be grieving the reality you are facing and be too overwhelmed by their own denial, anger or bargaining to be of much support to you. Or your grief may trigger their own fears, anxieties, memories or sense of loss. People tend to panic in the face of a situation they cannot control and may express this by giving unsolicited (and often unhelpful or even downright hurtful) advice. They may not be able to get past their own opinions about what should have or could have been done differently.

It is unfortunate that someone who is grieving needs to take on the extra burden of needing to maintain boundaries with unhelpful or hurtful people – but this is sometimes a necessity. If you are someone who is seeking to support someone as they’re grieving, you may want to encourage and help them in keeping such boundaries.

In my doctoral cohort, one student is focused on introducing the cursing Psalms into personal and communal worship. In the Roman Catholic church, these Psalms are no longer read in public worship because of the strength of the language and images they employ. However, for people who have suffered, for people who are grieving, for people who are angry at God, for people who have trouble expressing their emotions to God, these Psalms offer great depth and permission.

Consider Psalm 55:

Listen to my prayer, O God,
    do not ignore my plea;
    hear me and answer me.
My thoughts trouble me and I am distraught
    because of what my enemy is saying,
    because of the threats of the wicked;
for they bring down suffering on me
    and assail me in their anger.

My heart is in anguish within me;
    the terrors of death have fallen on me.
Fear and trembling have beset me;
    horror has overwhelmed me.
I said, “Oh, that I had the wings of a dove!
    I would fly away and be at rest.
I would flee far away
    and stay in the desert;
I would hurry to my place of shelter,
    far from the tempest and storm. ”

Lord, confuse the wicked, confound their words,
    for I see violence and strife in the city.
Day and night they prowl about on its walls;
    malice and abuse are within it.
Destructive forces are at work in the city;
    threats and lies never leave its streets.

If an enemy were insulting me,
    I could endure it;
if a foe were rising against me,
    I could hide.
But it is you, a man like myself,
    my companion, my close friend,
with whom I once enjoyed sweet fellowship
    at the house of God,
as we walked about
    among the worshipers.

Let death take my enemies by surprise;
let them go down alive to the realm of the dead,
for evil finds lodging among them.

As for me, I call to God,
    and the Lord saves me.
Evening, morning and noon
    I cry out in distress,
    and he hears my voice.
He rescues me unharmed
    from the battle waged against me,
    even though many oppose me.
God, who is enthroned from of old,
    who does not change—
he will hear them and humble them,
    because they have no fear of God.

My companion attacks his friends;
    he violates his covenant.
His talk is smooth as butter,
    yet war is in his heart;
his words are more soothing than oil,
    yet they are drawn swords.

Cast your cares on the Lord
    and he will sustain you;
he will never let
    the righteous be shaken.
But you, God, will bring down the wicked
    into the pit of decay;
the bloodthirsty and deceitful
    will not live out half their days.

But as for me, I trust in you.

One of the most effective ways the enemy of our souls has to distract us from trusting in God is to accuse us. When we are vulnerable to that sense of accusation, our guilt, anger and pain keep us from resting in the security of God’s love and grace for us. Questions like the ones asked in the email may be a complex combination of our own grieving and the accusing whispers of the enemy. "Why is God punishing me?", "Why did God allow this to happen to me", "Can I be forgiven?”

To combat the power of such thoughts, we first of all identify them for what they are:

grief + accusation = loss of peace and inability to rest in trusting God. When we know what we are dealing with, we can begin to take concrete steps to address it.

Secondly, we give ourselves permission and space to express the emotions that connect to these thoughts: our pain, our fear, our anger, our worry, our sadness etc. Remember the Psalm. There is no need to hold back in expressing these emotions. God can handle it. We don’t rush ourselves through this phase –we are gentle with ourselves and we wait to seek creative ways to allow these emotions expression.

Thirdly, we confront whether the statements are true. Is God punishing me – or is my experience part of living in a broken world as a person with free will? Can I be forgiven –or is the truth that all the sin of humanity past, present and future has already been taken to the cross by Jesus and cancelled and forgiven – and my part is to accept and trust that this is true? We may need to sit in prayerful silence, inviting the presence of Jesus to work the truth past our minds and into that deep place in our heart that is fearful and vulnerable to guilt and accusation.

Fourth, we recognize that to move forward we must tackle the challenge of acceptance and letting go. The question “why” can haunt us forever if we do not take this step. The reason the question has so much power is that we can only respond to it with faith – not with certainty. Faith tells me that God loves me. Faith tells me that when I hurt, God hurts too. Faith tells me that God cares for me and is with me in all things. Logic says God is all powerful and could have intervened if I mattered to him, if he cared about me, if he loved me. Logic says God is all powerful so since he didn’t intervene and prevent this from happening he must have it in for me, is punishing me, or is unloving. Logic says maybe God isn’t all powerful. Logic says God is cruel and not worthy of my worship. When we get to this kind of impasse – where our faith is waning in trying to maintain a sense of a loving and gracious God in the face of our logic which is concluding that either God doesn’t love me or God isn’t really God, we can feel so hurt, hopeless and angry.

But this competition between faith and logic will not resolve our painful dilemma or bring us peace. To break out of such an impasse, we need to shift our focus. When the scripts run over and over in our head, questioning the love and care of God, we need to stop, become aware of the infinite loop, and ask ourselves, “What will bring me peace right now?” Peace comes when we recognize that our logic can only answer the question “why” if we let go of our faith. And if we let go of our faith, we will only experience a limited peace – because we will have lost our connection with the Source of the peace that passes understanding. True peace comes when we accept that we cannot fully and completely answer the “why” question this side of heaven. Peace comes when we acknowledge the limits of our understanding and choose to believe that God is for us, even though we cannot understand why he did not prevent the pain we are experiencing.

One of the scripts I use to replace the fearful, angry doubt that can rise up when I am experiencing grief and accusation is to remind myself, “Whom have I in heaven but you?” (Psalm 73). Even in my pain and confusion, I would rather have God on my side than be left simply to make myself my higher power. I need Someone bigger, wise, more gracious and loving than I. I will choose to believe in this God – cling to him even when I am angry with him, confused by his absence or fearful that he has ceased to care for me – because my other alternative is to simply trust myself and I know only too well how limited that will be. I have found that when I practice the script, “Whom have I in heaven but you?” my faith is stirred up, the power of the grief, accusations and emotions gives way to a quiet confidence that though I do not understand, I will trust in the Lord.

Letting go of needing to know “why” is never an easy task. Our pride, our sense of entitlement can get in the way. It takes hard work, focus and determination to replace the why script in our minds with a script of acceptance and submission to the call of faith to believe that God is good. But, if we seek to do this, the power of the Holy Spirit will help us each step of the way.

To the writer of the email, I would say that it will take much more than logic to find peace in the midst of such difficult questions. But there is Someone who is much more powerful than our logic – and his name is Jesus. He is for us. Nothing can separate us from his love. He gave up his very life, suffering on our behalf, to make us right with God. He is the One who holds the keys of the Kingdom. He is able to give life where there is hopelessness and despair. He brings light where there is darkness. He gives strength to the weary and peace to those who are distressed. And in ways beyond our understanding, God does work all things together for our good. It would be my prayer that this individual who has received the diagnosis would find a depth of life and peace in Christ that he has never experienced before.

-WG

Generous Spaciousness & the Invitation to Rest

2012-07-13T13:02:00.000-04:00

Generous spaciousness is a posture that is needed more than ever. In a world of instant communication where people can react and respond within seconds, perhaps without taking time for reflection or prayer and with the convenient protection of anonymity, harsh polemic is more often the norm than is generosity. It is easy to be black and white, self-righteous, arrogantly certain, and loud with your judgments when you don’t have to put your name to your opinions. When there is little to no chance of accountability, you can throw out statements without really thinking through how they might affect others.

Generous spaciousness invites a different kind of discipline. It seeks to intentionally make room for the reality of multiple perspectives. It seeks to extend the benefit of the doubt that different conclusions are held on the basis of convictions that have been thought through and prayerfully reflected upon. This of course is not always the case. Sometimes people hold opinions that they’ve never risked questioning or challenging. But generous spaciousness at least wants to expect the best of people and encourage an environment in which people will be invited to risk internal critique and challenge their own assumptions and attitudes.

Jesus, himself, recognized that people could study the Scriptures and miss how they revealed him. In John 5 he says, “The Father who sent me, confirmed me. And you missed it. You never heard his voice, you never saw his appearance. There is nothing left in your memory of his Message because you do not take his Messenger seriously. You have your heads in your Bibles constantly because you think you'll find eternal life there. But you miss the forest for the trees. These Scriptures are all about me! And here I am, standing right before you, and you aren't willing to receive from me the life you say you want. I'm not interested in crowd approval. And do you know why? Because I know you and your crowds. I know that love, especially God's love, is not on your working agenda. I came with the authority of my Father, and you either dismiss me or avoid me.”

We see this again in the story of Jesus walking with the disciples on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection. He goes back to the Scriptures and reveals himself to them – Scriptures that they knew inside out and backwards and yet had never seen how they pointed to a Messiah who would suffer, be killed and then be raised from the dead.

People read the Bible all the time and see what they want to see or see only what they’ve been taught. We are prone to this kind of tunnel vision. The apostle Paul says, “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.”

That’s why we need to engage with Scripture from the starting point of Jesus Christ. Any interpretation of Scripture that isn’t Christ-like ought to be questioned and deconstructed. Generous spaciousness seeks to be Christ-centered. It is meant to be a posture that nurtures a Christ-like ethos. That’s why it is more important to us to call people to come to know Jesus more deeply than it is to argue about six or seven texts that address same-sex sexual behavior. If we look at those texts without knowing the person and character of Christ, we can think we are being very wise and intelligent from a human point of view – and still be missing the heart of Christ for gay people. Our best wisdom may indeed be foolishness.

Jesus responded particularly and uniquely in each personal situation he encountered. In this we see a generosity that meets people where they’re at, acknowledges that different people need different kinds of space and time, instruction and direction, invitation or challenge. Jesus, himself, embodies paradox and tension. He both challenges the status quo and upholds the ancient tradition. He used Scripture in a way no one had ever encountered before – and while some believed and marveled at his wisdom and power, others were offended, angry and refused to acknowledge his teaching. Jesus, in response, wept over the city of Jerusalem and expressed his care by saying, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” And at his crucifixion, Jesus implored, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” He embodied a profound sense of generous spaciousness in extending care, grace, and forgiveness without coercing or demanding that people accept and follow his teaching.

Jesus embraced children and affirmed child-like faith. He warned anyone who would be a barrier to such faith that it would be better if they put a millstone around their neck and threw themselves into the sea. Jesus, it is well known, had dinner with the wrong kind of people, touched the wrong kind of people, had conversation with the wrong kind of people, went to the wrong places, triggered and exposed social taboos, broke dividing walls, and announced a new kind of level playing field. The apostle Paul summarized this way of Jesus by saying, “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.”

My friends, I implore you, on Christ’s behalf, to be kind and compassionate to one another when this topic of homosexuality comes up. Extend grace and forgive one another. Walk in the way of love. Be willing to give up your right to be right for one another. Give one another room and space to engage with Scripture, to encounter Christ, and to receive his love. Because as hard as it may be for you to accept, people who know and love Jesus and care about the Scriptures may come to a very different conclusion than you do – and either one of you could be wrong.

I recently suggested three breath prayers to an individual who had developed a very strong sense of self-sufficiency. This individual had endured a lot of pain and brokenness in his journey and in response had built a very strong coping system. But his coping system essentially could make no room for generous spaciousness. It was a system that both helped him and yet limited him in experiencing the healing and rest of God.

The first breath prayer was, “I am the Beloved child of God”. This prayer invited the person into a posture of receptivity. When we are strong and confident in our own abilities, our own intellect, our own strength, or our capacity and competence, it is very difficult to receive all that God wants to give us. So it is important that we learn new ways of being and new ways to be receptive.

The second breath prayer was, “Be still and know that I am God”. This prayer invited the person into a posture of reprieve or rest. Many of us who have built elaborate strategies to cope with the challenging realities of our lives maintain very high levels of vigilance. Our minds are always at work. It can be very difficult to find a reprieve from the scripts that run in our heads. This breath prayer invites us to focus on our breathing and becoming still and resting in the confidence that God is God and we are not.

The final breath prayer was, “Lord have mercy on me a sinner”. This is a shortened version of a very well-known prayer from the desert fathers. This prayer invites a person into a posture of relinquishment. When we are willing to acknowledge that we are in need of mercy because we fall short of fully relying, trusting and depending on God, we relinquish the pride, fear, and striving that so often mark our attempts at navigating our own lives. Relinquishment can lead to deeper faith.

Receptivity, reprieve, and relinquishment all invite us to enter a sense of rest. Many of us are weary in the arguments and attitudes that surround the debates around homosexuality. Some of us are weary of trying to figure out for ourselves what we believe and how to best be faithful in response to the question of gay relationships for Christians. Some are confused and threatened by the many different opinions and strong positions held by different people. Our hearts can feel battered and bruised. We may find it difficult to know how to best love ourselves and others. In the midst of this tumult, we need generous spaciousness. We need receptivity, reprieve and relinquishment to help us to enter a deeper rest.

It is our desire, through the work of New Direction to nurture this kind of space – a space to find the rest of God, to rest in his love, to rest in his grace and mercy and to extend that rest to others.

-WG

Changes at Exodus & Apologizing for the Pain of Ex-Gay Survivors

2012-07-09T17:53:00.000-04:00

There has been a lot of buzz of late about changes in the focus of Exodus International under Alan Chambers’ leadership. As many of our readers will know, New Direction used to be a member ministry of Exodus. In fact, I served as the Regional Rep for Canada for about three years. In that time, I did my best to encourage the network to step back from debates about causation, to focus on discipleship rather than reorientation change, and to cease any involvement in political matters that would impede or prevent civil equity for LGBT people. It seems that some five years later some of these changes are being incorporated into Exodus as it moves forward.

In my last conversation with Alan, I encouraged him to think very carefully about how Exodus will navigate dialogue with those who hold affirming views in the future. He and I both know that societal attitudes are shifting at an incredible pace, at least in North America. These shifts are happening both outside of and inside of the Christian community. I challenged Alan to think about the potential role Exodus could play in modeling peace-making and being a catalyst of respectful dialogue in the midst of diverse perspectives on the question of gay marriage for Christians.

Where I particularly hope to see more change at Exodus is on the question of identity. I have written about this before and so I won’t belabor it here. I think that the way people describe their identity is intrinsically linked to their ability to be honest and live an authentic life. It is true that we ascribe meaning to the description of our identity – but such meaning is not determined simply by the description. Rather, each individual determines the meaning they will ascribe to the way they choose to describe their identity. For example, many women describe an aspect of their identity as being a mom. But being a mom means different things for different women. For some women, being a mom means they live vicariously through their children and their sense of worth is directly connected to how successful their children are in school or in their various activities. For others, being a mom is balanced by other aspects of their identity such as their faith, their marital status, their vocation and their social context.

Certainly, people of faith can be encouraged to prioritize their sense of identity as being primarily found in their connection with God. For example, my deepest security is found in my identity as a Beloved child of God. That doesn’t mean, however, that I’m not honest about describing other aspects of my identity.

My understanding of Exodus’ current emphasis is that same-sex attracted people should focus only on their identity as a Christian. My sense is that it is stilled viewed as unhelpful to simply say, “I’m gay” (meaning simply that the person experiences same-sex attraction). I continue to feel that this compromises an individual’s ability to live honestly and authentically and may also affect their own sense of self-acceptance.

Now that Exodus seems to be rejecting an emphasis on reorientation, another outstanding question will be how they will address the pain of ex-gay survivors. As I look at the last five years at New Direction, we have had opportunity to listen to a lot of stories from those who experienced harm in their ex-gay experience. At times, we’ve had the opportunity to have a more intimate, one-on-one conversation with those who had used New Direction’s services. Where we can, we’ve done our best to offer apologies and to make amends where applicable, as limited as they may be. But we acknowledge that this is an ongoing process for us – even as we encourage Exodus to consider how they will act on this matter in the future.

In light of that, I have prepared a letter that will be a part of our main corporate website. I am often asked if we have followed up with past recipients. The challenge with that is our desire to honour the privacy of such individuals. While some may appreciate the contact and the opportunity to share their story and hear of the evolution in the ministry, others may feel violated or have old memories unnecessarily triggered. However, our hope is that by posting this letter in a prominent place on our main website, that people will have the opportunity to contact us should they wish to discuss their past experiences.

We would be glad to hear your feedback and suggestions in the comment section as we strive to serve those who others as they process their ex-gay experiences. It is our prayer that past or present, all those who connect with New Direction would encounter a safe and spacious place to explore and grow in their faith in Jesus Christ.

To any individuals formerly connected with New Direction Ministries,

I recently met with two gentlemen who had been recipients of New Direction’s services. One was from the early years, before I took my role in 2002. The other had connected just a few years ago. I had never met either of them before, but I am grateful they took the time to meet with me at Starbucks.

Both indicated that their New Direction experience had been negative. And they both wanted to know if New Direction had really taken a new direction – or if some of the kinder sounding language on the website was just a gentler way of presenting the same old paradigm. These are really legitimate questions. And I understand the skepticism that I encountered.

One of the first things they asked was whether or not New Direction continued to promote ex-gay theology. When I asked them to clarify for me what they meant by that, they raised some key points:

· Do we think being gay is a choice? No, we do not. We don’t know exactly what causes different people to experience consistent attraction to their own gender. It seems to be a complex combination of different factors for different people. But we certainly recognize that for many people who identify as gay, they have sensed something intrinsically unique about themselves for as long as they can remember. As they grew and developed they realized that this uniqueness could be described as being gay. One way to describe this could be a constitutional same-sex orientation where there is little to no fluidity. A person doesn’t choose to experience this – they just do.
· Do we believe that there is something intrinsically wrong with being gay? Is being gay a sin? No, we do not. We do not believe that experiencing same-sex attraction is sinful. As I’ve listened to many stories of ex-gay survivors over the years, one common theme I hear is the deep damage that resulted from feeling unworthiness, shame, and self-loathing. The truth is, each human being, regardless of their sexual or gender identity, is created in the image of God, has inherent worth and dignity, and is unconditionally loved by God. We acknowledge that Christians disagree with one another about whether a same-sex sexual relationship is sinful or not. Where we encounter such disagreement we seek to promote dialogue and an environment that honours the autonomy of the individual.
· Do we believe that a person must try to be heterosexual to be a faithful Christian? No, we do not. Our status as reconciled children of God is completely God’s gift to us through our faith in Jesus Christ. This gift of salvation transforms our lives such that we want to live out our grateful response. In light of this, Christians seek to become more and more like Christ. We see this manifested in the fruits of the Spirit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, goodness and self-control. Research has shown that radical change in sexual orientation is rare. We have seen Christians so focused on trying to become heterosexual that the rest of their life suffered. We encourage people to accept their reality regarding their sexual identity and to focus on drawing near to God in the confidence of his love for them. We acknowledge that gay Christians have different beliefs and make different choices about whether or not to enter a same-sex relationship. Our focus is to encourage people to prayerful reflection, discerning engagement with Scripture, and faithful participation in a community of faith.

We do not have a statement on marriage on our website. And we are not focused on promoting a particular view regarding the question of gay marriage. Our focus is to nurture environments within our faith communities where sexual and gender minority individuals can explore and grow in faith in Jesus Christ. We work to encourage our churches and Christian organizations to be places of radical hospitality where our differences do not fracture us – but allow us to grow in the opportunity to extend humble grace to one another as we all seek to follow and live for Christ.

I want to acknowledge that people have been hurt by ex-gay paradigms. I know people experienced shame. I know people felt “less than”. I know that some people’s faith never recovered from the experience. This causes me deep grief and motivates me to be very clear that New Direction does not promote an ex-gay mindset. We want to be part of the movement within the Christian community that recognizes and affirms the full humanity, worth and dignity of our LGBT sisters and brothers (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender).

We care about the people who have connected with New Direction, past and present, would appreciate the opportunity to hear your story, and invite your input and suggestions as we continue to shape this ministry to be a place that promotes generous spaciousness and hospitality in the Christian community.

If you would like to have a conversation about your experience with New Direction, please don’t hesitate to contact me personally.

Shalom,

Wendy Gritter

Executive Director

Is Generous Spaciousness just a Bridge to Nowhere?

2012-06-22T11:19:00.000-04:00

I’ve just spent some time reading through a number of different blogs and, as I often do, find myself ruminating on the mission,vision and context in which New Direction seeks to serve.

On one end, Alan Chambers gives an interview for the Atlantic in which he shares his vision for a discipleship-focused ministry for same-sex attracted people who believe that Scripture directs them to refrain from entering a committed same-sex relationship. On the other end, John Shore chews up and spits out the idea of bridge-building and middle ground and unequivocally calls for all Christians to support gay marriage.

Both of these men are my brothers in Christ. Both believe they are following the leading of Christ. And the words and actions of both affect my sisters and brothers who are LGBT.

I am keenly aware, as I ponder not only their thoughts, but the comments generated by these posts, that I do so as a person of majority privilege. As a straight ally, I cannot fully enter in to the experience of needing to fight for the opportunity to enter a loving, committed relationship to launch building a family of my own. I can’t fully enter the experience of needing to deconstruct things I was told and taught, often under the assumption of the authority of God, in order to simply believe that I could be loved by Jesus and be welcomed to share in the inheritance of life forever in his presence. I can’t imagine the weight of feeling like people in my family and church believe I’m going to hell simply for who I am.

Sure, I have had to face a lot of fear and insecurity, self-loathing, and shame in my Christian journey. And yes, I have navigated the threatening terrain of my own cognitive dissonance and the need to risk rethinking and reassessing things I’d been taught to believe. I’ve experienced some rejection and judgment along the way. But, I know that I did all of these things as someone who still enjoyed many of the benefits of majority status.

In my role as leader of New Direction, I try to be especially sensitive to the limitations of my capacity to speak into these matters – while at the same time, trying to be faithful to do what I can to help the Christian community nurture safe spaces that are radically hospitable.

Because we work across a broad spectrum of the Christian community, we have refrained from aligning ourselves with a particular theological position on the question of gay marriage for Christians. This is a change from our earlier history when we were clearly positioned with the belief that sexual intimacy was to be reserved for the marriage of one man and one woman. The reason for this change was our desire to focus on nurturing environments that gave people the room they needed to process these complex and threatening matters. We wanted to help people think through how they believe what they believe, why they believe what they believe, and to more deeply consider the impact of their beliefs on others. We wanted to be with people in the messy, chaotic process of opening heart and mind to the possibility that they could be wrong – and to seek with a willing and humble heart for what God might be saying to them on these matters as they risk prayerfully thinking and discerning in light of the reality of gay Christians in the church. As people do this, some will reaffirm the belief that for Christians, sexual intimacy is to be experienced only in heterosexual marriage. Others may move towards a belief that God’s grace invites same-sex oriented persons to experience love, intimacy, companionship and family in a committed gay marriage. We are not trying to determine that outcome for people, but to invite them to consider their motivations, their attitudes, their approach, and the implications of their beliefs on others. We want to encourage people to wrestle with God, to dig deeply into the Scriptures, to stretch their experience of faith in the lives of gay people, to pray, and wait, and listen.

When the people of God apply themselves to do these things, my hope is that the culture of the church will shift to a more loving, relational, and just response to LGBT people. Our confidence is that the Holy Spirit can be trusted to lead people into truth. Why that truth seems to look differently for different people is something I’d really like to ask the Trinity when I see them face-to-face. What I think I’ll encounter is a generous spaciousness within God that blows my mind and causes me to fall on my face in the realization that on this earth I never even began to grasp the immensity of his grace. Until that time, I’ll work towards sharing a vision of generous spaciousness that makes room for all people, with all of our different ways of engaging Scripture, different experiences, different theological assumptions, different levels of certainty, and different understandings of how exactly God is at work in our broken world. In the meantime, I will focus on becoming a more loving person as I encounter all kind of different people.

These are some things I know for sure:

For better or for worse, there are a lot of different perspectives held by Christians on the question of gay marriage – both civil or within the church. We can get mad or sad or outrageously impatient about this, but none of that will change this reality. It is what it is.
This range of perspective is motivated by many different factors – including the good, the bad and the ugly in terms of Biblical interpretation, logic, attitude and posture. Declarations of the perfect interpretation, logic, attitude and posture on this matter may likely be perceived as arrogant, insufficient, and flat-out wrong by those who disagree. Such declarations, no matter how passionately articulated, usually aren’t the most effective way to change people’s hearts and minds. That’s just the way it is.
Humbly acknowledging these differences is the first step towards nurturing a space where people can actually listen to what each other thinks and believes. Assuming what another person believes or feels usually isn’t very helpful. Respectful, honest dialogue, particularly with people for whom a topic is personally impactful, is a much more effective way to work towards shared values than demanding change is.
Gay Christians don’t all agree on how to understand God’s direction or how to interpret Scripture on the matter of gay marriage. There are incredible examples, like my friends Justin Lee and Ron Belgau, who model respectful friendship despite disagreements without the patronizing assumption of internalized homophobia, disregard for justice, or misguided agendas.
A matter as complex as the intersection of faith and sexuality is difficult and threatening for most people to process. This means the process usually isn’t quick, pain-free, or neat and tidy. People need space to face their fears, privilege, and assumptions in a non-anxious context.
People who experience same-sex attraction need space to wrestle with how they will integrate their faith and their sexuality. They need time to consider multiple perspectives, clarify their beliefs and values, and then build a network of supportive relationships that will encourage them to live in alignment with their convictions.
For the foreseeable future, there will be diversity on the matter of gay marriage in the Christian community. This diversity needs to be stewarded in a way that takes the public witness of the church into careful consideration. The degree to which we will be able to experience unity in this diversity has a direct impact on how the world perceives the church.
Unity in diversity is sustained by key common ground affirmations that include: affirmation of the dignity and value of all human beings; affirmation that salvation is a gift of God given through faith in Jesus Christ and not by our attempts to be holy; affirmation that only God knows the status of a person’s relationship with him; affirmation that we are called to nurture environments where all people can flourish; affirmation that we are to emulate God’s unconditional love – including to people we disagree with.

Generous spaciousness acknowledges the reality that in the church today there are people who love Jesus deeply and honour the authority of the Scriptures as God’s revelation to us but who none-the-less come to differing conclusions on the question of gay marriage for Christians. Paul dealt with matters that Jewish and Gentile believers disagreed with one another about in both the Corinthian and Roman churches. His focus was on cultivating relationships saying, “Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do. And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with—even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently……So let's agree to use all our energy in getting along with each other. Help others with encouraging words; don't drag them down by finding fault…….Cultivate your own relationship with God, but don't impose it on others. You're fortunate if your behavior and your belief are coherent. But if you're not sure, if you notice that you are acting in ways inconsistent with what you believe—some days trying to impose your opinions on others, other days just trying to please them—then you know that you're out of line. If the way you live isn't consistent with what you believe, then it's wrong.”

-WG

Suggestions on Communicating Effectively

2012-06-10T19:59:00.000-04:00

In a blog post entitled, “The Church and Homosexuality: Ten Commitments”, Kevin DeYoung offers advice to Christians about speaking on the topic. As he considers different audiences, he recommends:

·         If we are speaking to cultural elites who despise us and our beliefs, we want to be bold and courageous.
·         If we are speaking to strugglers who fight against same sex attraction, we want to be patient and sympathetic.
·         If we are speaking to sufferers who have been mistreated by the church, we want to be apologetic and humble.
·         If we are speaking to shaky Christians who seem ready to compromise the faith for society’s approval, we want to be persuasive and persistent.
·         If we are speaking to liberal Christians who have deviated from the truth once delivered for the saints, we want to be serious and hortatory.
·         If we are speaking to gays and lesbians who live as the Scriptures would not have them live, we want to be winsome and straightforward.
·         If we are speaking to belligerent Christians who hate or fear homosexuals, we want to be upset and disappointed.

So how ought we to speak about homosexuality? Should we be defiant and defensive or gentle and entreating? Yes and yes. It depends on who is listening. All seven scenarios above are real and not uncommon. And while some Christians may be called to speak to one group in particular, we must keep in mind that in this technological day and age anyone from any group may be listening in. This means that we will often be misunderstood.

While I can appreciate that DeYoung is attempting to help Christians be discerning about their approach in seeking to communicate on this topic, I found that his list contained a lot of assumptions which may not be helpful as we encounter real people facing dilemmas about this matter.

If we are speaking to cultural elites who despise us and our beliefs, we want to be bold and courageous.

Who exactly are the “cultural elite”? Individuals with high levels of education? Atheists and agnostics? Artists and activists? People who disagree with us who go to the opera? This label makes unclear assumptions about a particular group of people. Not only that, the assumption is that they “despise us and our beliefs” …. But how do we know they do? If they have some level of public voice perhaps we can perceive that, if they write a blog, if they are a newspaper columnist…. With these assumptions DeYoung sets up an “us vs. them” mentality that perpetuates polarity rather than dialogue. If courageous boldness is to be our response, one might ask, “To what end?” To what end are we to be courageously bold – in confronting them based on our presumed perception that they despise us and our beliefs? I can’t imagine such confrontation softening hearts or catalyzing conversation. Are we to be courageously bold in confronting their beliefs – which we presume to know? That probably wouldn’t cause us to delve into dialogue. How are we to know who exactly these cultural elite are, how are we to know what their beliefs are, how are we to ascertain they despise us and our beliefs, how are we to have opportunity to communicate with them, and to what end do we seek to be courageously bold in response to them? I’m not sure how this is helpful advice for the follower of Christ who is feeling the tension of how to respond to the matter of homosexuality in their every-day ordinary life.

If we are speaking to strugglers who fight against same sex attraction, we want to be patient and sympathetic.

This may sound somewhat petty, but I find it unfortunate that DeYoung would so reduce people to his perception of their struggle with sexuality that he would label them “strugglers”. Really? Is that all they are? In what way are they “fighting against same-sex attraction”? What does that really mean? Does it mean they are trying to change their attractions? Does it mean they are trying to resist temptation or lust? Does it mean they are trying to not engage in same-sex sexual activity? If we do not understand what is actually going on with an individual who experiences the reality of same-sex attraction, we have no business responding to them until we take the time to better understand their experience and story. We all need people to be patient with us – and we certainly give thanks for the incredible gift of God’s patience towards us. But when you put “patient and sympathetic” together, I can’t help but feel it is rather patronizing. There is no sense of mutuality expressed in this response. The truth is, followers of Christ are mutual pilgrims on the journey of faith regardless of our unique and particular areas of weakness or challenge. If anyone is treated as a second class citizen in the Kingdom of God, we make a mockery of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ who took all of humanity into himself making the way for reconciliation with God. What is our response to Christians who are seeking to steward their experience of same-sex attraction in a manner that is in alignment with their Scriptural convictions and beliefs? How about respect? How about listening? How about prayer? How about friendship? How about shared transparency and authenticity? How about invitations to serve together? How about opportunities to share their story?

If we are speaking to sufferers who have been mistreated by the church, we want to be apologetic and humble.

OK, here again, are we to reduce people to the hurt they have experienced? Are they “sufferers”? While it only takes a few seconds more to type “people who suffer and have been mistreated by the church”, it speaks volumes about how we see people. Our language matters. I’m all for the call to humility – and in fact really wish DeYoung had included it for every single category. I’m a bit puzzled by the word “apologetic”. Is that the best we as the people of God have? An apology to offer? What about confession of sin? What about repentance – a changing of our mind so that we see people and things differently? What about lament? What about reconciliation? What about restitution?

If we are speaking to shaky Christians who seem ready to compromise the faith for society’s approval, we want to be persuasive and persistent.

OK I’ll just be blunt, this one smacks of judgment to me. First the judgment is that the reason a Christian might be wrestling with or even reconsidering their perspective on the question of God’s intention for a gay person is because they are “shaky”. It couldn’t be because of honest conviction, cognitive dissonance, spiritual discernment, experience with gay Christians, a different hermeneutical starting point, a renewed consideration of textual, exegetical, historical or cultural factors, a different emphasis in ethical reflection or engagement with Biblical scholarship. Rather it is assumed that the individual is “shaky”. It is also assumed that the individual who may be wrestling with the matter of whether a same-sex oriented follower of Christ might be enfolded in the accommodation of God’s grace if they entertain the possibility of finding love, companionship and family through a same-sex relationship is “ready to compromise the faith” and for the reason of “society’s approval”. What is the faith? Is it moral decision making? Is it understanding of the contours of sanctification? Certainly these matters are part of the faith of followers of Jesus. But we see all through the course of the history of the church, beginning with the earliest years and in particular the experience of the Roman church that Paul considers in the 14^th chapter of his letter to them – that such questions are not uniformly agreed upon by adherents of the faith. So then, what is the faith – that core of faith that binds us together as the Body of Christ? Is it not that God has made a way for his broken creation to be reconciled to him through the atonement won by his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ? Is this not the faith – unshakable by the moral and ethical disagreements among Christians because it is caught up and assumed in Christ – not in anything his children wrestle with, think about, or make decisions on? And is it really fair to assume that the reason someone might be deeply wrestling with such matters is because they are looking for “society’s approval”? Might it not be a much more deeply intrinsic part of their journey to know God and to love him with all their heart, mind, soul and strength and their neighbor as themselves? And if our response is persuasive and persistent, how can we ensure that we have space to hear what the Spirit might be whispering to us through the witness of our brother or sister in Christ (who despite our presumptions of being shaky – may actually be in a place where they are straining to hear God’s direction)? If we are persuasive and persistent, how can we possibly allow any room to consider how we might be wrong? How do we find the space to recognize our own limitations, and the implications of our own privilege, bias and blind spots?

If we are speaking to liberal Christians who have deviated from the truth once delivered for the saints, we want to be serious and hortatory.

What I find challenging about this particular recommendation is the assumption that all liberal Christians have deviated from the truth. What truth exactly have they deviated from? The truth about homosexuality? Or is it a more general sense of the truth of the gospel? The truth of the atonement? All of the above? In this “us vs. them” framing, are we simply expected to assume they have deviated from the truth? Now I’ve been accused of being too serious more than once in my life – but what exactly does DeYoung want us to understand by the use of the word “serious”? Does being serious mean we ought not to find a sense of camaraderie with sisters and brothers in Christ who we may have labeled liberal? Does serious mean no shared joy in our salvation? And then maybe some of you need some help with a word like “hortatory” so here is the dictionary definition of this adjective: urging to some course of conduct or action; exhorting; encouraging. Hortatory speech may be appropriate but not if we are basing it on our assumptions.

If we are speaking to gays and lesbians who live as the Scriptures would not have them live, we want to be winsome and straightforward.

If we are encouraged by people like DeYoung to not reduce people to their sexuality, if we are encouraged to call all people to find our true identity in the reality that we are forgiven sinners, made right by the free gift of God’s grace given to us through Christ, then why are sexual minority persons reduced to “gays and lesbians”? With this language is DeYoung making a concession to the immutability of sexual orientation for those on the extreme ends of what is an otherwise somewhat fluid continuum? My guess is that answer would be “no”. So then could we use language that is a little more respectful of the whole person? Could we simply say, “gay people or gay men and lesbian women”?

And given the reality that we, as followers of Christ, have the opportunity to incarnate and embody the presence of Jesus in the midst of our pluralistic context, would it not be more winsome to consider that gay men and lesbian women might be living their lives in a manner that does not line up with our belief of how Scripture would have them live – rather than a declaration that they are living in a manner the Scriptures preclude?

It is great to encourage people to be winsome. I hope with such a recommendation that DeYoung is prioritizing the opportunity to reflect the beauty of Jesus with our gay neighbours. I hope that this would come with the acknowledgement that our gay neighbours may already be in living relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.

But what are we to make of this word “straightforward”. Hopefully it isn’t meant to be some simplistic play-on-words. Is it supposed to insinuate a call to repentance? While the list may be catchy with its pithy words – if the Christians reading the article don’t know what is meant by certain terms – how does that actually equip them to communicate well? If “straightforward” communication precedes listening, asking open ended questions, inquiring about the potential journey of faith an individual is on, then it will straightforwardly lead to a closed door …. And how does that jive with the call to be winsome?

If we are speaking to belligerent Christians who hate or fear homosexuals, we want to be upset and disappointed.

Now one might assume that from this entire list, I would be most pleased with this recommendation. But, I actually see some unhelpful assumptions here too. Without question, there are belligerent Christians who harbor attitudes and emotions concerning sexual minority persons that are inconsistent with the way of Jesus. I’m not sure, however, how our upset and disappointment can lead to any transformation. With supposed shaky Christians we’re supposed to be persuasive and persistent – but with hateful jerks we’re supposed to be upset and disappointed? Really? That’s it? What about offering some hortatory speech? What about principled confrontation? Anointed assertiveness? And what if the hatred or fear comes not from belligerence but from ignorance, fear, skewed teaching, bias, misguided privilege? What about the role of education? What about information that breaks stereotypes and exposes motivations and attitudes inconsistent with the person of Christ? What about remembering that “if I diminish you, I diminish myself”? I’m not sure that passive aggressive disappointment and upset have any potential for the needed transformation that recognizes that ALL parts of the Body of Christ are needed and that if and when ANY are alienated, mistreated or oppressed it is to the impoverishment of the entire Body.

DeYoung goes on to lay out ten commitments that he encourages those in the church to adopt. In the interest of length for this post, I’m not going to comment on all of them – but do go read the whole blog and form your own response. But these ones I think are particularly worth noting:

We will treat all Christians as new creations in Christ, reminding each other that our true identity is not based on sexuality or self-expression but on our union with Christ.

I think this is great – it is just too bad that it doesn’t seem to be fully reflected in his statements about how we ought to communicate with different audiences.

We will ask for forgiveness when we are rude, thoughtless, or joke inappropriately about homosexuals.

Thank you for this statement – I hope that it is taken to heart and put into practice as more than just a nice sentiment. (Although I still wish that there was a recognition that the language “homosexuals” just smacks of exclusivity). Which leads us to the next statement:

We will strive to be a community that welcomes all those who hate their sin and struggle against it, even when that struggle involves failures and setbacks.

Really? We’re only going to strive (a.k.a. “work really hard – cause it is a hard thing after all”) to welcome people who hate their sin? What about people who don’t even know what sin is? What about people who currently disagree with us about what is sinful and what isn’t? What about people who just don’t care about sin at all but are wondering about who this person Jesus is? What about anyone from our neighbourhood who might wander into our midst and wonder what we are up to? What about our model of the unconditional and radical hospitality of Jesus – who certainly didn’t seem to make hating one’s sin a criteria for being welcomed?

We will seek to love all in our midst, regardless of their particular vices or virtues, by preaching the Bible, recognizing evidences of God’s grace, pointing out behaviors that dishonor the Lord, taking church membership seriously, exercising church discipline, announcing the free offer of the gospel, striving for holiness together, and exulting in Christ above all things.

I wonder sometimes, in the struggle to “get things right” if we miss the forest for the trees. One might ask the question, “How do I feel loved?” Quite simply, we feel loved when we are welcomed, when we feel we belong, when we are cared for, when we are extended grace and the benefit of the doubt, when we are trusted, when people take the time to actually know us, when people see beauty and goodness in us, when people share their lives with us …… I am not questioning for a moment that in the Christian community we are called to engage the Scriptures together, look for God’s grace; hold one another accountable to not get sucked into patterns of culpable shalom breaking (ie. sin); consider deeply our commitments to live our lives together; discern how to spur one another on towards growth and demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit, enacting of the Great Commission and living out the words of Micah 6:8 “To do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with our God”; share the good news of the inbreaking of God’s reconciling grace into our broken world; pursue a life of grateful response that looks more and more like the life of Jesus; and to deepen and mature in our expression of holistic worship through every facet of our lives. One has to wonder, however, if in seeking to embody the way of Jesus in an increasingly pluralistic, post-Christian and gay-affirming context, if those actions of the church will be a tangible demonstration of love to the one on the outside, the cynical one, the wounded one, the lost one …. let alone the one who identifies as a child of God but who sees things differently than we do ….. It is important to have a strong sense of who we are called to be as the gathered people of God …… but it may be helpful to remember that that may not be perceived as love by those who do not share the same ecclesiastical and/or doctrinal commitment.

DeYoung warns his readers to expect to be misunderstood because in our day of technology we do not have the luxury of speaking to only one type of audience. This is true – in an online world, we are speaking into diverse contexts that may splice, tweet and otherwise dissect our words any way they please. If this is indeed the case, then perhaps the best response is not a resignation to being misunderstood. Perhaps we need to consider a response that might connect in the midst of such diversity.

It seems to me that Jesus models for us the kind of common ground response that will connect with real human beings across the categories that DeYoung takes pains to describe. Jesus puts the wisdom of God, seen as foolishness by the world, on display for all of creation to see. Jesus empties himself and makes himself nothing. He thwarts the way of power, surrenders the right to defend himself, releases his privilege and status….. all for the sake of identifying with all those who could not reconcile themselves to God – but for whom he would offer his life to make us right with God. Jesus humbled himself and demonstrated the most tangible expression of love ever seen: he laid down his life for his friends.

What if our call to response was humility – across the board?

What if our call was to build friendship – across the board?

What if our call was to deeply entrust those we encounter – across the board – to the already completed, but not yet fully realized, atoning work of Christ?

What if our call was to love – tangibly, deeply, fearlessly, with a deep commitment to mutuality and grace?

What if we really trusted that the Holy Spirit is the One more than able to reveal, convict and lead people into truth?

If we did these things, I believe we would be able to respond to the diverse audience of individuals engaging the matter of homosexuality in a way that truly smelled like Jesus.

-WG