Here’s a bold claim: the church should put aside all other declarations when it comes to engaging the LGBTQ issues of our day, and start by gathering around the affirmation “We Are Broken.”
I believe the LGBTQ issue is being ideologized in American culture as well as in the church ON ALL SIDES. A church’s or individual’s public position on the issue has literally become the moniker on whether you are in or out of the evangelical orthodoxy club. I understand why people on both sides would do this. There’s important things at stake. But ideologizing the issue: i.e making the LGBTQ into a concept that one is either for or against, extracting said concept from real lives and concrete communities, and galvanizing people around one side or the other, accomplishes nothing in the church for God’s mission.
Instead of all this, I suggest we start gathering people together around the affirmation “We are Broken.” Arriving at this posture, I suggest, is the starting point for the engagement of this issue. Of course it is the posture that must be re-inhabited by the community of Jesus Christ whenever she is confronted by any fork in the road that comes when a church body is confronted with a new and or conflictual issue in culture. This posture, labeled by the words “We Are Broken,” is always the starting point for the process of discernment in Christ. We come together under the common agreement “We are Broken” and then invite others to join in as we seek the way forward for healing, redemption and new creation.
Now I admit, big denominations and large mega churches are probably too far along the process of ideologization to go this route. When money is involved, when power is assembled, we gravitate towards hot button issues and get behind agendas. So, just maybe, it shall be the missional communities working in the neighborhoods who shall make way for a renewal of a different kind.
I therefore suggest that it might be up to missional communities, confronted with the issue of same sex relations (or for that matter other points of disagreement over how we shall lives our lives together as sexual beings) to begin by gathering in this way. Begin a conversation around the question “are we broken?” Not “are you broken?” but rather “are we broken?” The leaders of such a conversation should start by admitting “I am broken.” If the church leaders have led a perfect sexual life and never encountered issues in their own lives of sexual brokenness, then they should not be leading this issue in their local churches. They should look to others who have struggled with issues of sexual brokenness to lead. The discerning posture cannot begin until we all gather together in the place of “we are broken.”
By saying “we are broken” we are clearing the table. Arriving at our brokenness goes beyond whether one claims a heterosexual, bi-sexual, gay, etc. sexual orientation. When the leader confesses “I am broken” it forms the safety and the space by which we gather before the cross. Frankly, regardless of whatever sexual orientation we inhabit, if you feel like everything is perfect in your life in this regard, there simply is no need to discuss your sexuality in the church. Taking all particular sexual sins off the table, can we agree, together that WE ARE BROKEN? The gathering of people before Christ is for the broken. And …. “we are broken.”
By saying this is the place where we start, we are not (nor should we) denying the 2000 years of history in Christ, it’s time worn understandings of sexual redemption in Christ. But these understandings need to be furthered into our lives through discernment of Scripture in the Spirit. God must work to extend the depths of these understandings into our lives. None of this can happen apart from the mutual submission to Christ that comes from the place of mutual confession “we are broken.” By saying we are broken, neither are we denying the various understandings and histories of sexual identity each person brings. Again, we come with these histories and enter in to what God is doing here. But the LGBTQ person, and the rest of us, cannot enter in to this discussion if we cannot trust one another to be in the center of God’s work. This comes by first saying “we are broken.” Then we come to the cross, that place where we together confess our brokenness and come to submit our lives to what Christ would do.
Can we then agree among our missional communities that before anyone discusses this issue, goes public with a statement on the sexual issues of our day, before we get into the actual details, or any of the issues are to be determined, before we can even discern this among ourselves, before we can even examine ourselves before the Spirit, we must make way for a safe place that is comfortable, loving and supportive where we can mutually submit to one another and say “we are broken.” From here, we can love, care and have discernments about ANYTHING. But most importantly, from here we can submit one to another to Christ, allow His gifts, his discernments to take shape in a group. God by the Holy Spirit can work here.
Again, this kind of unusual place will probably have to happen in small missional communities (where you can avoid the ideology). Because we live in one of the most sexual charged, excessively sexually focused, sexually abused, sexually broken cultures (compare U.S.A. to Africa or even Europe), we will need to make way for these kind of places. And so to deal with any of this, we do not need a do’s and don’t’s list of what’s permissable and what is not. We need a place where the Holy Spirit can work in and among His people, a place of uncovering. Otherwise we will get no where in this mess.
So the first item for missional communities (and I would argue for the broader church as well) to accomplish in this day of controversy over sexual relations, is discuss how we can put ideology aside, and come together in small spaces where there can be redemption because “we are broken.”
Is this possible? Is this a pipedream?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
This may be a way forward, as long as heterosexuals can openly admit along side their own sexual brokenness, that the LGBTQ person coming into the circle of discernment is risking far more by being there.
James, you’ve added a second requirement to the one David proposed, thus opening the gates for others as well.
Can you give a biblical basis for this approach? I Peter 3:15 says we should always act with gentleness and respect. But, it also says we should give an answer. I Cor. 5 says we shouldn’t even eat with someone who’s sexually immoral and calls himself a believer. Galations 6:1 says if someone is caught in sin we should restore him gently. Matt. 7 says we should first remove our plank, but it also encourages us to then remove the speck in our brothers eye. And, Eph. 4:15 says we should speak in love, but still challenges us to speak the truth.
This approach seems to be removing all the truth, which reduces love to sentimentality.
Actually, I think most of your passages support the approach that is being talked about in the blog post. Here’s a relevant paragraph from the blog post:-
If I’m reading this correctly, then it sounds like the sequence he’s advocating is to first approach our collective brokenness with love, and then to work towards our healing and correction.
Here’s what I’m seeing in some of the passages that you’ve pointed out
1 Peter 3:15 – Give the reason for your hope in a way that conveys respect
Galatians 6 -Restore others gently by carrying each others’ burdens
Matt 7 – This pretty much says don’t try to correct unless you’ve acknowledged your own brokenness.
Eph 4 – We speak the truth in love so that the whole body grows
So based on the passages you’ve chosen, and my understanding of the blog post, there seems to be a decent biblical basis for what he’s talking about.
I suppose one could make that argument. But, does it not violate truth to approach sin as if it’s a disputable “ideology”? If someone were caught in adultery, would we similarly instruct the entire church not to make any statements about the adultery until we enter a discernment process? How about teenagers having sex outside marriage? People addicted to porn? Shouldn’t the church be clear on the moral matters on which Scripture is clear? It seems to me that the church in America is facing a moral crisis and needs clear biblical leadership.
How do you reconcile this approach with I Cor. 5?
Julie,
Part of the underlying assumption here is, that this is a community engaging those outside the community, or at least those outside the core. This is in essence a missional community embedded in a context. And so we are now coming here bringing/embodying the gospel. I am well aware of 1 Cor 5. This judgement/discernment is internal to a community, a community where they are all baptized members one to another in Christ (1 Cor 6:15). Here in this committed sociality, I believe we are to make careful and wise discernments within the community, but Paul distinctly asks “what business is it of us to judge those outside the community (1 Cor 5:12).
So it is in the posture in mission to those outside of us who present us with new issues of sexuality that we must invite out of a posture of this position of brokeness.
If we’re talking about how to engage those outside our community, then I agree — this is a viable option. I guess what threw me was “. . . before we can even discern this among ourselves, before we can even examine ourselves before the Spirit…” I think we need to determine as communities what we believe about biblical sexual ethics. But, if there’s unity in the community about that — and what sexual redemption looks like — then, I’m much more open.
Amen.
To be clear, I’m “Amen-ing” the post.
excellent thoughts. ‘i am broken.’
David,
Thank you for this post. I really think you’ve said something deeply profound here. I think this orientation for a community of faith is extremely crucial, not just in regards to their interactions with the LGBTQ community (although, certainly there), but also in regards to everyone they interact with period. We have lost this somehow. It seems to me the linchpin in your whole post here is this line:
Begin a conversation around the question “are we broken?” Not “are you broken?” but rather “are we broken?” The leaders of such a conversation should start by admitting “I am broken.”
I am starting to believe that this is the birthplace of any healthy community of faith.
So again, thank you again for this post.
Just something to add with regard to Julie’s last remark “if there’s a unity in what sexual redemption looks like” … I just want to say that there is a way that I say a hearty Yes to that, but also caution that we must not be unilteral in thinking we have it ALL figured out …
I think this is an intellectually lazy approach. I picture a community saying “We’re broken. You’re broken. Everyone is broken.” And as long as we keep it at that–and never mention anything about *what* is broken or even what being “whole” entails–we’ll all get along fine.
But among the goals of a missional community is acting as a redemptive presence in its context. Or more precisely, to sacramentally embody what it means to be “whole”. Albeit the community is cannot be truly whole but, through the sacntifying work of the Spirit, it (should) be slowly becoming transformed.
Too many communities allow “broken” people to wear their sins as a badge of humility–almost proud of the fact that they still fall victim to the foibles of being a sinner. They never push people toward the hope we have in Christ to become truly human. The pursuit of virtue is condemned as “works justification”.
The distinctive about the LGBTQ issue is that some do not perceive this to be a “broken” aspect of their humanity. The mere fact that you approach an LGBTQ person with the attitude of “I’m broken…aren’t you?” already implies a stance. (First, you have labelled them as “gay” rather than a person. Second, you have initiated the conversation with the concept that there is something “wrong” with who they are.)
I would dare say that to many homosexuals, this entire line of thinking would be insulting.
LGBTQ is a long standing focal attack point for the mainstream churchand always will be, if you can actually find a group of individual free thinking Christians you should count yourself lucky for finding such a needle in a haystack. However, the burgeoning church of old is dying these days based on their nonsensical zero tolerance policies on sexual orientation, other religions, freemasonry, and other hot topics. It is time for the pious to remember what it is to be humble, and the preachers to stop telling us what kind of God we’re supposed to believe in. Love and acceptance are the only two things we’re required to provide, this article is a small flicker of hope that some humanity still exists in Christian way of life. One cannot be spiritually peaceful if it is mired with hatred.
Great first step- what comes after though?
Saying “we are broken” implies that Christ wants to bring wholeness and healing. Clearly, what that looks like is going to be the main bone of contention.
In other words- after the admission of brokenness, is there a place to describe what healing looks like? Both for heterosexuals and for homosexuals?
Doesn’t that just end us up at the same place ultimately (albeit by a different route) of calling homosexuals to a redemptive reality of either God-produced change or Spirit-empowered celibacy?
I think it’s important for us to distinguish our pastoral and our ethical response to an issue. It seems that what is being advocated here is leading with the pastoral, which is a response of unfettered compassion and unity in mutual brokenness. Yes! But, I really don’t think this can serve as a substitute for a clear biblical theology of sex and sexuality (I do think you can arrive at such a thing).
I know your not saying one should replace the other, you’ve made that clear, but the reason we desperately need both is because “we are broken” is both an ethical and a pastoral statement. Homosexuals in the public square (the missional context does seem to be the audience here) or even on the ground in a neighborhood like mine in Portland, immediately hear right through to the statement being made about them. This has been my experience in talking with homosexuals in my world about these issues (both in an ex-gay ministry and in daily life). Granted, I have had really positive experiences in conversations with people in that place by communicating from a place of mutual brokenness.
I would argue for a deeply integrated approach that speaks with pastoral compassion, empathy and recognition of mutual brokenness and clarity. These have to come together because the distance between “we are broken” and “what are you trying to say?” is nothing.
Broken.
The intent here is to get us to a starting place – the place that breaks the logjam of what I am calling the ideology of the LGBTQ issue as engaged currrently by the church. If we come to a place where we can all mutually take the posture of brokenness, then we have the space to uncover the issues that drive our sexualities. We have a space for the processes of sanctification (restoration that leads us towards the redemption of the new heaven and new earth) whereby Christ comes and breaks in with His Kingdom, where we are a.) present to each other, b.) confess in one to another, c.) pray with each other in submission to Christ d.) listen to each other, e.) share the forgievness of Christ, f.) bring things out into the light with oneanother, g.) seek Scripture together (free from ideologuical entangelement), h.)speak truth to one another out of which we are able to respond to God and i.) pray again with one another in submission to Christ, and j.) seek the Holy Spirit work, k.)seek faithfulness in new and wholistic ways. These are the processes of sanctification that shall lead us to the new creation.
I wonder if it is possible to genuinely propose a pure starting point. I mean can you say “this is our starting point” without having some preconceived notion of what the ending point should look like? However vague that may be…
Looking at your list of things we do–confess, share, pray, forgive, bring things to light, speak truth, etc. Can any of us really suppress our expectations of what these things would look like?
A question–not accusing…maybe even rhetorical–how much experience do any of us have with intermixing faith communities with homosexual communities? And, if we do, does the effect of agreeing “we are broken” really just end up translating to “we’ll just have to agree to disagree and avoid this topic in favor of ones we *do* have in common”?
I like the idea of a ‘conversation’ and all that that actually entails.
I love the idea of ‘we are broken’ beginning that conversation.
Maybe as a precursor, (like when you say “we must make way for a safe place…” ) we could enmesh our lives with those outside the church so that we have real relationships, where we could “be present” with them on their journey, and put ourselves in positions to serve and love them.
i know you know this, but i see so many ‘conversation attempts’ without any real relationship, …and it’s off-putting.
Since you’re breaking it down though, I’ll offer a possible sequel to ‘i am broken’: Maybe something like “i’m inadequate on my own” and/or “finding answers within myself” is a myth.
Yep
I think I get what your aiming at in this post and your comments, Dr. Fitch – it’s about our developing a stance of humility within our missional congregations about our issues of brokenness so we can have a more open stance toward the outside community.
Yet, after reading the post and comments multiple times, something still doesn’t sit right with me about it. This may sound quite ridiculous, but is it possible that your vision for the “we are broken” stance is too small instead of too broad? That it could actually constrict us in our transformation processes individually and communally, instead of open things up?
Yes, it looks like you’re attempting to aim us toward a strong acknowledgement of the core brokenness we ALL have in our *humanity.* And yet, most of the last half of your post seems to limit the discussion of brokenness only to our *sexuality.* Is it possible that there’s a subtle overemphasis here on sexuality, to the point that it could appear that sexuality is the whole of our identity instead of just one significant dimension in it?
Maybe I’m completely misreading you. But I keep wondering if the emphasis on sexuality here because we live in a hypersexual culture has become a form of syncretism to that culture, even while it seems you’re trying to present a contextual form of resistance to that culture. And maybe that’s what we need to do for the sake of biblical relevance, because our culture is so perversely immersed in these topics. But could it also be that a different “third option” is to integrate the discussion consistently around the larger container of humanity rather than the smaller containers of gender identity and/or sexual orientation?
Before the Christian men’s movement of the early 1990s started a flood of material on masculinity, I was in a counselor-led men’s group. It consisted of guys dealing with every representative form of brokenness in gender and sexuality. However, instead of focusing on our specific issues, we intentionally focused on the larger human issue of what it means to be Christlike, and then also how Jesus is a role-model of masculinity for us. That helped us more than a lot of sin-specific programs did, because those programs kept our identity tied to who we were or what we had done, rather than refocus us on who we were becoming. And I think that’s the potential problem here, only at the congregational level. If we’re adopting a “we are broken” stance in order to have something to say about sexuality, have we hit the target but perhaps missed the bulls-eye?
That’s a lot of “e-processing aloud” and hope it isn’t too vague. I guess I see your approach as potentially keeping us orbiting around the integration point of sex and gender, instead of a more holistic identity. And I’ve seen from ministry in the recovery movement that too much identification with specific problems can become an identity that thwarts wholeness.
Brad
I like what you’re saying here: the overemphasis on sexuality, the syncretism idea you throw in there. I think what the space I am calling “we are broken” allows for some descontruction of all this. In fact I think, if done relationally, locally, it allows for the subversion of some of the cultural structures around sexuality. I think the way of the cross always does this.
This was a good provocative comment.
Maybe in the biggest possible picture of what’s happening, my comment is not so much a criticism of your position, Dr. D., but more a melancholy commentary on the fact that we even have to respond to such severe brokenness and overemphasis about sexuality in our culture. And also sadness at the fact that we have to deal with such complex bound-set/centered-set issues inside the congregation and outside in the community. Could it be that the false identity of us a solely sexual beings is an unfortunate “legacy issue” left to us by the a reductionist philosophy inspired by the so-called “Enlightenment”?
However, I guess none of this should be a surprise; we live in what is still primarily a guilt-based culture, which is pretty much based on a consistently Western, modernist, analytic, closure-oriented, perfectionistic, in-or-out mentality. We cannot escape this, so perhaps we can at least expand from black-and-white thinking of our *guilt* based culture more holistic thinking, and to healthier relational connections instead of *shame* and more humility instead of *power/fear.* And maybe, after all, that’s what you’re aiming us toward: Kingdom culture offers the comprehensive and redemptive opposites to guilt, shame, and fear through forgiveness, restored relationship, and love …
P.S. To quote that postmodern media maven … okay, so it was *Tank Girl* … “It ain’t the world I woulda made, but it’s the world I live in.”
Perhaps this is obvious, or perhaps it’s not fitting for this conversation, but when I read what you’ve written here David I think of Paul at the end of Galatians 3:
“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
So, OK, we’re all broken. This is the necessary admission when confronted with the grace of God in Christ. “I’m broken. Thank-you.” I think the admission “I’m broken” also strips us of any merit we may want to cling to. We generally like to hold things over against others (ideology). We use these ideologies, I think, to gain merit in our own eyes. “Well, I’m *not* homosexual nor do I agree with that lifestyle”, as if that gives us some sort of leg up (merit) in the sight of God. The necessary admission of brokenness robs us of the ability to get a leg up. Rather, it places us at the back of the line.
Back to Gal. 3. Paul proclaims that we are “in Christ”. Economic, political, and sexual distinctions (all of which can be ideological) fall away in light of being “in Christ”. We need to always remember this. Admitting that we’re broken displaces us from all other identifies and parties and places us “in Christ”.
Amen.
Thanks for the post.
My wife and I have been really engaging in this discussion as she has found herself working among LGBT persons, Christians even. We hear their stories, see the fruit of the Spirit in their lives, and wrestle with our presuppositions. Relationship forces us to get past labels and deal with the heart of the matter.
Personally, I’m working on a film script right now with exactly this theme. Some touchstone insights for me: “Unbrokenness is a fearful thing.” – KP Yohannan. A.W. Tozer said: “It is doubtful whether God can bless a man greatly until He has hurt him deeply.”
Certainly there are Biblical statements (clear and unclear) and teachings of Christians who have come before us that we can’t just sweep away. But I firmly believe that our identity in Christ, grace-saved sinners, is always the starting point and core of how we form community AND by which we allow others to approach us from the ‘outside.’
One more note; I don’t believe all of the issues that are lumped into the acronym LGBTQ are in the same category, from a Biblical point of view. For instance, I am encouraged to think of transgender persons through different Biblical lenses than some of the others under that umbrella. Dividing the acronym is probably anathema to some, but I see more clarity in some distinctions.
Thanks for the conversation.
I too believe we need to accept the posture that we are all broken. But we (straight community) should not assume that the LGBTQ will join us in our brokenness. I say this for a couple of reasons. The mistrust is so deep the LGBTQ community will often see this as deceitful i.e. “They” are identifying with “us” simply to gain ourtrust, then “they” will insist that “we” change.
Also it has been my experience that the LGBQT community may accept brokeness in their sexuality, as we all may experience brokeness in our sexuality but in general rejects the premise of brokenness in their sexuality identity.
Jenell Williams Paris argues in her book The End of Sexual identity: “that first we need to remove the sexualization of our identity saying, “categories keep us rooting after moral law and clinging to moral judgment. They hinder us from cultivating an ethos of calm”..The sexual identity framework labels the grocery bag “lesbian,” “bisexual” or some other category based on the condition of a single item, desire. If “beloved” were the label on every bag, then identity would be secure, regardless of the items in the bag or their condition.”
If we all accept that we are all broken (sexually and otherwise) in that brokeness the Holy Spirit will have the mandate to perform the necessary transformation
I think you hit on something here Darrell. I too find the logjam disheartening… I suspect however that a different postue can be used by the Spirit to bring us all into transformation … this posture of humility, submission to the cross, is ontologically at the core of where God’s kingdom breaks in i.e. the reign of Jesus as Lord via the Spirit.
I too find Paris’ book a good artiuclation of the sexual identity conundrum for anyone who seeks Christ.
Blessings!
This post hits home for me, as I am in a journey with a young college student who texted me that he was gay. He doesn’t have much of a narrative of Scripture background. His mother, who is on the fringes of our community, told him he was going to hell. This was the starting point for our conversation. I really didn’t know where to begin, because he had kept distance from those seeking to include him in the community prior to his sharing this with me and I was afraid of our first conversation being our last. I really didn’t know how to journey with him in grace and truth.
Our initial meetings were far too full of too many things to describe here, but I did focus on the brokenness of humanity post Genesis 3 and especially the pain caused by this brokenness. I find the proposal above to be practically helpful , though the intention of the post seems to have more of a corporate interaction. We are still in the journey. It is hard every time we get together. It is a strange dance for each of us. We ended this last time reading Psalm 23 and just reflecting on the feel of God as shepherd from this Psalm. I can see seeds of God’s grace in our conversation, in our hearts. It isn’t a linear journey. It is an integrated and intertwined path that takes us into many other places of his and even my story. This journey is forcing me to trust the Spirit and seek for him to experience acceptance as an image bearer before we ever begin to reflect on his sexuality.
[...] position on sex, I’d want to point you to my friend, Dave Fitch’s post from last year, We Are Broken. Though primarily focused on the LGBTQ discussions within the church, Dave makes an important point [...]
[...] Reclaiming the Mission » “We Are Broken”: Overcoming the ideology that stymies the church’s e… Here's a bold claim: the church should put aside all other declarations when it comes to engaging the LGBTQ issues of our day, and start by gathering around the affirmation “We Are Broken.” I beli… [...]