Is it possible to “be Missional” among the gay/lesbian communities without a clear affirmative stance towards GLBT relations? Said another way – Is it possible to participate in “God’s Mission” in today’s world while making a clear statement that would not affirm GBLT sexual relations as normative for the Kingdom of God? Many would flat out say “no.” For many, to be missional/emerging is to not only accept but affirm gay and lesbian sexual relations as normative. Any other position is judgmental, positivistic (even primitivistic) towards Scripture and sets us apart and over against the gay and lesbian communities among whom we seek to minister God’s grace.
Although I may agree with some of this, I find myself still at odds with many of the underlying assumptions that drive these conclusions. I’m asking for a rethinking of this question for Mission.
I have been unhappy with the evangelical proto-type response to the gay/lesbian communities in United States. There has been a “sick enjoyment” present in pointing to the sin of GLBT sexual relations on behalf of evangelicals. It’s a defensive and protective reaction. Many times, subtly, the gay/lesbian is used as an object to justify our sense of moral status which so often proves duplicitous. It is like pointing to the sin of the gay/lesbian sexualities enables us to cover up our own deep complicity with the same sexual malformation in ourselves. I tried to say all of this here in this post over here.
On the other hand, I find the approach of the post-Emergent Coalescence (pEC) unsatisfying. It most often proposes a loving acceptance, an affirmation and further conversation (this is an quick stereotype of the dominant stream). Although there are positive elements here, after years of engagement, prayer, reflection, this approach remains insufficient for me to the missional task.
This leads me to put forth what I see as a third option to the above two options (as I have admittedly stereotyped them). Over against position 1.) which “welcomes but does not affirm” (common among the Neo Reformed missionals), and position no. 2 which “welcomes and affirms”(an admittedly simplistic summary of many in the pEC) I propose a 3rd position, the position of “welcomes and transforms.” This position is driven by two key theological drivers to the Missional logic: the incarnation and its model of cultural engagement and the Kingdom of God (in ways different from the Niebuhrian “transformational logic” that seems common among the streams of Emergent. In the three posts to follow, in the coming weeks, I would like to address the three themes within this whole series of posts (see here) following this Missional Logic. The three themes are a.)sanctification, b.)the way the community works, and c.) the way we interpret Scripture. I’ll talk about
a.) The Place of Desire in the Kingdom, and the Incarnation’s Affirmation of the Body
b.) The Way Witness Works Through Incarnational Redemptive Community
c.) The Redemptive Hermeutic that Guides a Missional reading of Scripture
I’m going to offer a post for each one of these starting this week. This series of posts concludes a series of posts that began here (and continued here and here and probably should include this post here as necessary background). The three posts to follow all deal with this last and probably most controversial of all the issues regarding GLBT relations.
But first, before I dive into this controversial water, what do you think? Can One Be Missional and Not Be Affirming of GLBT defining peoples? Can you be an Emerging Christian in N America and NOT Be Affirming of GLBT Relationships? Is there something inherent to the Emerging and/or Missional movement which requires affirmation of GLBT as the basis for life among these communities? that requires making no defining statements at all on these issues? Have I disqualified myself from being Missional and/or being “Emerging” by posting on this issue in this way?
Peace …
___________________________________
Following the lead of “T” in the comments, I am now changing the name of this position from “Welcomes and Transforms” to “Welcomes and Mutually Transforms.” This gets at what I’m after in way Community works redemptively in all transformation. It also gets at the difference between the kind of “transformed” implied by Niebuhr versus Yoder …More to come on this in the posts to follow … Thanks “T” …
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Dave,
The difficulty though, in setting up a contrast between a “self affirming or “self flourishing” with an immediate appeal to an ethic to die to self is the challenge of recognizing the unique dignity of self in Christ. Is there a place a unique, flourishing self (this applies to many other issues besides GLBT) in Christ? Is there a place for the self in Christ in the “welcoming that does not immediately fall into “American individualistic ethic?”
Dan,
I would say “of course” … and I readily admit that the American consumerist ethic that you speak of will hear “die to self” as the denial of self flourishing … for there is a natural reticence in us all to refuse to hear the second half of Jesus’ call … “unless you lose your self … you will not find it” … The real contrast is not between a “self affirming” ethic and a “dying to self ethic” … it is between two “ways” which lead tow different kinds of “self flourishing” …
Of course I adamantly defend the “flourishing self” in Christ … but I think we see the way we get there in dramatically different theological ways? In fact, u know, not to over-push this in the comments, but I suspect our theological methods are different …
For instance, I am more cautious than you about reading say off “the Trinity” a concept of relationship or “self” and then conceptualizing it and applying it to human situations … instead there is a concrete way (call it incarnational) by which participate in the life with God through Jesus Christ that we come to an udnerstan ding of the Trinity in history in and through Jesus Christ … … the conceptual way – tries to understand the conceptual implications as “an ego” above history … the incarnational way submits one’s “self” to God’s history in Christ so that we may discern the way that lies ahead .. by the Spirit who leads into all truth …that transforms our “selves” alongside what God is doing in all of creation…
I’ve gone off on a tangeant … sorry … but this theme will return as we flesh out this series of posts … Thanks to you .. and all voices … and I have found this conversation very very helpful …
Blessings
David,
I think you’re making an unfair statement when you say that loving and life affirming necessarily means “self-affirming” in a perjorative sense. I think you’re doing the same thing you say many people do when they react negatively to hearing that they must “deny the self.”
My entire personal philosophical, psychological and theological understanding of self is rooted in the understanding of the self as understood in Christ. As I’ve said before, I think my argument is much more nuanced than “if it feels good, do it.” Maybe I haven’t been as clear as I think.
As I have said earlier, I do not have “an ethic” in any sort of of objective or systematic way. I only said that IF I were forced to extract a sexual ethic from the Bible for where we currently find ourselves, I think it would be somewhere along those lines.
In terms of being “subjective”(not subjectivistic), of course it is, as I believe it should be. I will say I don’t think it’s any more or less subjective than any given person’s understanding of what it means to “deny the self and take up the cross.” When I read “deny the self”, I think of denying my own prejudices toward others. I believe “denying the self” actually takes a great deal of inwardness and self-reflection. I can honestly imagine a scenario in which, for someone to truly deny themselves, they would actually have to accept the fact that they were homosexual. In fact, I have read many accounts that describe exactly this process.
I find it hard to believe that “denying the self” would mean a homosexual should not be homosexual any more than “denying the self” would mean that I should no longer be heterosexual. When “denying the self” gets equated with denying sexual identity, I think it very often leads to serious psycho-theological confusion and despair.
While I know this isn’t what you’re saying, the argument of “denying the self,” especially when espoused by members of the dominant class, often leads to some pretty dangerous implications (as have been critiqued by various womanist and queer theologians).
isaac
This is a great conversation, with plenty of honesty and thoroughness. I’ve been content to just listen.
I felt it worth mentioning 2 things in anticipation of David’s next few posts on this subject matter and the continuing exploration of what defines the Missional perspective.
The first is that Matt’s opening up of this conversation outside of the mainstream North American context is very important. Although we may not all have the resources to indulge it here, we should not be so quick to write off its potential impact. The presence of polygamy in many of the cultures Christianity has encountered in the just the last 200 years or so presents us with a clear illustrations of how the Gospel struggles with both longstanding cultural traditions or societally comfortable arrangements. I’m sure we have much to learn (good and bad) from the arguments used and conversations had in those contexts that apply to our own.
Secondly I would say, in regards to mutually beneficial, non-coercive relationships, its very difficult to know if this is in fact what is happening without investigation and particularly without the cultural means to speak up and free oneself if it does. Systems theory and power dynamics might tell us alot about how hard it is for those in an unjust or unequal relationship to actually know this is the case. For that reason, I do not want to leave the matter to my own ability or that of those in the relationship to discern where injustice is occurring.
Isaac,
These are comments to a post and of course limited … but nonetheless, i did say “the reason I shy away from this ethic is because what “loving, life affirming” … as I hear it ( ask questions and listen) most often means “self affirming” or self flourishing.”” and then I made the death of desire on the cross central to the way of Christ.
So.. you know, I’m sorry if that offends … I didn’t mean to …
But can I ask? what does “loving, life affirming” mean? and who is the center focus of what that might mean? is it a community’s sense of life-affirming, is it the individual’s according to his or her own feelings, satisfactions, how long might we test this life affirming? Do you get that I’m not attacking? just asking?
No where did I say that the outcome of “following Christ by taking up his cross in relation to desire” would necessarily mean that gay sexuality is renounced – although I admit, that within Christian histories, this might make sense to assume … Yet, at this stage all I’m suggesting .. is that all desire … hetero, gay, lesbian etc etc…must go through the process of discernment … that is “the death of Christ” … Indeed, the elevation of celebacy in the NT … is the symbol of such a subordination of all desire (I never said a particular form of desire .. not even only sexual desire).
So I get your strong retort … the question remains however … why the rant against this fundamental invitation into the way of Christ as I read it? I never made it about gays over anyone else … I never said I am exempt (I’m very sincere here) or that anyone is exempt … why then should this not be the very entry gate into the Kingdom life of the redemption of all things? (again I’m not pointing to, and I’m not asking anyone to do anything I or any Christian under my leadership would be asked to do in the rites of Lent and baptism).
Peace bro …
David,
Again, I probably sound like I’m more upset than I am. I’m still trying to understand, be clear, etc.
It seems to me that based on post that stemmed all of these comments, that you were not willing to openly affirm homosexual relationships, or that you were hestitant to, etc. This is fine, in one sense, but you asked for comments and I commented. While it is clear to me that you’re not advocating any sort of malice or bitterness, I still don’t understand the hesitancy.
You asked, “Can One Be Missional and Not Be Affirming of GLBT defining peoples?” I have no idea what it means to be missional, but I will say it is hard for me to understand how a person who claims Jesus as the Christ (i.e. one who above all else seeks to love God and neighbor) could not be affirming of LGBTQ defining peoples. Thus the so-called rant against certain uses of language that have historically been damaging against marginalized people.
When I said that I was supportive of any “loving” and “life-affirming” relationship, I meant any relationship whereby individuals are mutually devoted to one another, i.e. any committed relationship in which the individuals involved are mutually upbuilt.
If this conversation is somehow only about all relationships having gone through the “death of Christ” then I’m not exactly sure what the LGBTQ “issue” has to do with it. I do not thing it is unfounded of me to have gathered a majority of these comments (not necessarily your comments) that part of the reason many individuals want to talk about “transforming” and the “death of Christ” was so that a persons’ being a member of the LGBTQ community might call their own sexuality into question in a harmful way.
There is a good chance that we have a similar ultimate aim in terms of coming to self understanding in christ, but are approaching it in different ways (perhaps this is not the case but I’m starting to think it might be). I think that someone must be affirmed or empowered before they can be asked to deny themselves in Christ (to then once again be affirmed in Christ). I’m not sure if that makes sense.
For example, I think it would be damaging to tell someone with very little power (in a sociological sense) e.g. a black lesbian, that she should “deny herself” in Christ, if she has not already come to a type of self empowerment (perhaps this comes through Christ too. I believe it can be different for different people).
thank you for you patience, grace, understanding, etc.,
isaac
I’m going to go back to Isaac’s comment about the Adam/Eve story, which for me is a foundational text for understanding sexuality. I do indeed understand the garden story as a “myth,” but that to me does not mean a literal history (“God created a man, and then a woman, told them to have sex, and thus humanity and history were born”) but as a story of arch-types. In the order God speaks out of chaos, he creates male and female in his image; in the coming together of male and female, the image of God is made complete. This paradise is an allegory to the glory God is working to restore, right? Yet Jesus teaches that in the new life, at the resurrection, we will not be given in marriage. It’s not as simple as saying “everything before the Fall in Genesis is normative.”
This, to me, is where the discussion has to be–rooted in the scriptures as interpreted by the community of Faith. Where the discussion ends up, I’m not sure.
Isaac said:
“I think that someone must be affirmed or empowered before they can be asked to deny themselves in Christ (to then once again be affirmed in Christ). I’m not sure if that makes sense.”
It makes a lot of sense, at least to me. It describes the healing and growth I’ve watched happen in the lives of many men and women who come out of backgrounds of abuse (whether physical, sexual, emotional, or spiritual). To someone who has only passivity and/or reaction, the “denial of self” in Christ sounds like the same-old-same-old, something I’ve come to understand has no relation to what life (or death) in Christ is really about. Someone with out a sense of self-loved-and-affirmed-by-God (and others) can try denial of self endlessly (believing they are being nothing but obedient) and all the time only be digging themselves deeper into a hole.
It seems like there is often an assumption that our overwhelmingly self-affirming culture means most everyone starts out pretty much self-affirming and with a strong sense of self. I think that’s about (at least?) half wrong.
OK … we’re in a thick world here … but Jennifer, Isaac and maybe others seem to be emphasizing that “one must be affirmed before they can be asked to deny themselves in Christ.” Is this true? … what might that mean? .. On one level, can we ignore the reality that our very subjectivity is sustained by our existing formations … cultural, ideological, social … To me this cannot be denied … and I realize many will disagree with me … and that’s fine if other ways make more sense or work for you … go with it .. right? But if you can agree with me on that, and that these formations are fraught with potential negative forces (such as the backgrounds of abuse Jennifer referred to) then the last thing we should doing is affirming this subjectivity as formed in them? is that right? … To me this gets at the heart of the denial of self that the baptismal vows lead us to …
ON THE OTHER HAND … if what you mean by “one must be affirmed before they can be asked to deny themselves in Christ” … is that I cannot recieve the command to deny myself and follow Christ apart from the deep knowledge that I am loved, forgiven, completely accepted in Christ Jesus … THEN I AGREE … AMEN!! …
Just read Mark 10, and I am seeing a connection with this discussion. In the story of the rich young ruler, Jesus seems like he starts by affirming all that the man trusts in: adherence to the Law. Then the text says this: “Jesus looked at him and loved him. ‘One thing you lack,’ he said. ‘ Go, sell everything you have….’” Somehow, Jesus’ love is what causes him to ask the man to give up the thing he most treasures, even after he has affirmed the man’s (ultimately futile) attempts at self-made righteousness.
Dave said: “if what you mean by “one must be affirmed before they can be asked to deny themselves in Christ” … is that I cannot recieve the command to deny myself and follow Christ apart from the deep knowledge that I am loved, forgiven, completely accepted in Christ Jesus … THEN I AGREE … AMEN!! …”
There’s a lot to unpack in that, but I’d say that’s the heart of it. It’s hard (impossible?) to deny a self that you don’t know you have or that you have only ever experienced as denied (even if not in the Christ-following way). There’s a big between an abstract “I” that am loved and the unique, concrete (and messy) I that am loved. The first is an idea that may only be known; the second, an reality with skin and bones to be experienced.
Dave: “On one level, can we ignore the reality that our very subjectivity is sustained by our existing formations … cultural, ideological, social … To me this cannot be denied … and I realize many will disagree with me … and that’s fine if other ways make more sense or work for you … go with it .. right? But if you can agree with me on that, and that these formations are fraught with potential negative forces (such as the backgrounds of abuse Jennifer referred to) then the last thing we should doing is affirming this subjectivity as formed in them? is that right? … ”
I don’t hear anybody trying to deny or ignore the subjectivity of the formation (as well as understanding) of our selves. That’s being a human being located in a real world context. Something that needs to be both affirmed (locatedness and the formation that results from it is part of being a human being in this world, with gifts as well as wounds) and redeemed (God meets us in our locatedness and draws us into his without taking us out of our own, living his story through ours and his life through us).
Jennifer
You say – “I don’t hear anybody trying to deny or ignore the subjectivity of the formation” … I was saying, if any one declares their subjectivity as off limits for transformation before entry into baptism, this seems to imply they are ignoring that often (not always) our subjectivity is formed from bad places, that subjectivity is not a given, but is formed. So let me ask you, or Isaac, is any part of your subjectivity off limits for transformation? That’s all I was saying?
To say any part of our subjectivity is off limits to Christ’s transformation is to presume I would even know which parts of my self are free from sin, disorder, malformation. I think you were a bit dismissive there and avoided answering the issue?
I think you and I should admit where we differ … I’m not sold on the modern subject … you are? Indeed it seems it’s assumed for you?
When you say “God meets us in our locatedness and draws us into his without taking us out of our own, living his story through ours and his life through us” … there’s part of this that I find to be a refusal of the gospel … i.e. “living his story through ours, and his life through us.” I assume you in the end can’t totally mean that. For it is only us that can live our story in His … not vice versa … nonetheless, it belies a commitment to the modern subject which for many reasons, I, and a host of post-Enlightenment thinkers much smarter than I, can’t join in with. Tell me where I am wrong?
Every “selfhood” is the product of a passageway to it … For Christians, it is the way of Christ that is the passageway into the self which is shaped into and by God. It is offered by Christ to us … it is best described by Christ’s words… right? “”If anyone wishes to come after me”, he said, “he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Lk 9:23). But for me this is not a modernist act of personal piety that I as pastor, or my church can enforce on some helpless quivering subject … Rather it is a political formation that all must walk through together … and I as pastor or anyone else for that mater … really can’t tell anyone they should do this … all we can do is model it by going this way ourselves … alongside others who all together give up the false power of the modern self to be transformed into the true self of the Mission of God for the whole world … This pasageway then subverts the violence of the world and transforms us into His new creation, the new life , the flloursihing life “in Christ,” not “in Christ” as a personal piety, but as a new way of being socially in the world (here I point you to Michael Gorman among others) … the verse after Luke 9:23 of course is “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it. …
peace DF
Dave,
I wasn’t trying to say that certain parts of who a person is are not subject to potential transformation. I was only trying to emphasize the fact that being homosexual is not something that necessarily needs to be changed in order to be a true self in Christ any more than being a heterosexual is. I think we’re in agreement here.
I think I basically agree with you when you say “if what you mean by “one must be affirmed before they can be asked to deny themselves in Christ” … is that I cannot recieve the command to deny myself and follow Christ apart from the deep knowledge that I am loved, forgiven, completely accepted in Christ Jesus … THEN I AGREE.”
However, I have a very strong ethical apprehensiveness about telling a homosexual person, or any other marginalized person, to deny themselves (me being a white, straight, male). Even if I have the best of intentions and do not mean to at all further marginalize a person but instead sincerely wish to speak the gosepl (which I believe it is) I am not so sure that who I am will not get in the way of what I am trying to put forth. In other words, unless a person is extremely careful and pays very close attention to language, as well as develops a real relationship with the other person, I do not think it is their place to make sweeping claims that all should be denying themselves in Christ without much much more explication. There may have been a time when this was acceptable, but I’m not sure it is now. Maybe I’m wrong.
Also, you’re gonna have to fill me in on what exactly you mean when you talk about a person’s belief in the “modern subject.” I could probably take a stab at what you mean but I don’t want to assume.
In terms of subjectivity, I think it is unavoidable. I don’t think Christ calls for anything other than a subjective response (as individuals) to who he is. Perhaps we’re operating under different understandings of “subjective/subjectivity”?
isaac
Dave, I do have to say you have me deeply curious. I wonder how you would die to self within a community that reads the way of Christ the way Dale Martin does in his book, *Sex and the Single Savior.* You would either have to make sure you would stay clear of that community, or be open to have your self transformed by their vision of self, gays, ethics, and nonfoundational community. Martin’s incredible analysis poses a great challenge for you especially in how you have responded to Issac and Jennifer.
typo: I meant Isaac. So, yes, with your immediate, driving, overarching emphasis upon death to self within a community, to be utterly open as you have called Isaac to, I am really curious how open you would be in a community shaped by Dale Martin (shorthand for a cluster of beliefs that would deny the modern subject, affirm the way of Christ in community, and gay Christians.
Dan,
Can you tell me why you think I would have a problem? (I don’t know Dale Martin or his community). One of the first questions would have to be why would I find myself part of this community? a second question would be, if you see what I am doing here as expositing the logic of God in Christ extending his incarnation into the world, what makes this community Christian? (again I don’t know this book).Is it itself a community following the way/ principle of the “enlightened self”? Is it a community which is in any way in submission, subordinate (working within the order of) Christ extending Himself in history, i.e. to the larger catholicity of the God’s work in the church? Bottom line … just tell me directly why you think I would have a problem with being in/entering this community?
Wow, Dave. I certainly didn’t intend to be dismissive or avoid any question.
Everything in me is open to transformation by Christ. That’s not the same thing as everything is open to being transformed to “fit” a certain community. Transformation in and by Christ goes far beyond the political/communal dimension. (In terms of concrete reality, “community” is relationships between individuals. Beyond that, it is no more than an abstract.)
When I talk about “God living his story through ours” I’m talking about the concrete reality that his life in us does not obliterate our locatedness and the uniqueness of our individual lives. Rather he redeems us and comes into the worlds we inhabit through us. There’s no “refusal of the gospel,” but rather a full embrace of the gospel into all my life and locatedness. (I’m not sure what the problem is here – the alternative would be for transformation to make us disappear from our lives.)
I think the clarifications Isaac has asked for might be helpful: “Also, you’re gonna have to fill me in on what exactly you mean when you talk about a person’s belief in the “modern subject.” I could probably take a stab at what you mean but I don’t want to assume.
In terms of subjectivity, I think it is unavoidable. I don’t think Christ calls for anything other than a subjective response (as individuals) to who he is. Perhaps we’re operating under different understandings of “subjective/subjectivity”? “
Jennifer
OK, I think this is a case of talking past one another …not intentionally … but we have two paradyms … and you know … I could parse and dissect here … but is it getting us anywhere? So, let’s just try to keep navigating … I don’t subscribe to your assumptions … you don’t to mine … so at that point I think we have to resort to other questions … and to living out the “way” we feel committed to out of our relationship with God in Christ … Offering it to others … always doing our best to recieve critique … I don’t expect everyone, I don’t expect even a majority to see what I’m describing here … It is fraught with “red flags” for what I have always read as the standard view. Yet to those who are tired, worn out, who find (what I’m calling the standard way)the accepted ways ‘empty’ and full of ever enduring conflict, I ask that you try to think in another way … what Yoder called “the politics of Jesus.”
peace …
[...] church and people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered. His most recent post is “On Being Missional” with the Gay/Lesbian Peoples Among Us, and it includes links to his previous posts in this series. Dr. Fitch has distinguished himself as [...]
[...] This post is in response to the latest installment in an ongoing series from David Fitch on the mission-shaped church and the LGBT communities: “Being Missional” and the GLBTQ #2: Mission and the Nature of Desire. This particular post is on sanctification, and how desire and identity relate to it in three different views within the emerging/Emergent/missional movements: welcoming and affirming people of LGBT orientations (typically the post-evangelical consensus), welcoming and not affirming (Neo-Reformed), and welcoming and transforming (Neo-Anabaptist missional). For links to previous posts in the series, see the paragraph near the end of this post: “On Being Missional” with the Gay/Lesbian Peoples Among Us. [...]
Although I find allot of the frame work your outlining for living this very interesting, somewhat refreshing and full of potential. I have wories that the language you are using is at danger of being easily Co-opted to describe the process for a reality which is much shallower.
Please hear this is not my attack on yourself but it feels like it’s possible to enter the practice you are outlineing using the very terms you use but with a unsurrendered preconcieved view of the outcome. And I wonder if this is what Issac and Jennifer have reacted against.
My view is I’m open to this idea but I believe to enter it faithfully with anyone who would honestly wish to engage in it I must surrender my previous position on the issue. How can I honestly enter into a community discerning on an issue if I am entering with the sole purpose of the community coming to discern along with me that homosexual relationships are incompatible with our community’s ongonig life. At a base level it seems only fair to be willing to drop our pre-decision as that is what we asking those who come from the GLBTQ to do.
it seems to me to not enter this process with at least the smallest openess that God may lead your community to affirm/bless maybe just one homosexual relationships if not many is essentially to be a charlarten and more over turns a possibly beautifull Godly process into a emotionally, decitfull and manipulative one.
Matybigfro …
I hope to address this issue in a post forthcoming…one part of this issue is to what degree is any community … a community ex nihilo i.e. a community without any history or hard won understandings in history … There is no such thing … and I would say that is especially so with an incarnational one i.e. one grounded in the on going embodied history of the incarnation in Christ … Likewise … to what extent do we even understand what gay/lesbian etc… means when someone attains that identity … to what degree is that more than sex? This seems to me in need of being understood before we can make any mutual discernments … i.e. it may be that the most important aspects of this identity have more to do with/less to do with sex … than a certain kind of flourishing? This in itself must be understood … and of course requires an openess … But is this a total openess … with no sense of what this community is built on .. i.e. redemption in Christ .. no .. Anyways, these thoughts are great, thanks … and we’ll see where it goes ..
DF
Discernment and Desires: How do we process as Christians? I believe that homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching…BUT…the basic, fundamental desire for same gender intimacy is healthy and good and should be embraced openly, not shunned, and a live topic of affirmation.
Desires like anger, or the desire to mourn and feel sadness or desires for food or material things are fundamentally healthy and basic to being human, and the ‘goodness’ of those desires articulated, confirmed and owned by the Christian community.
Yet, when anger turns to bitterness, or the desire for food turns to gluttony or the desire to mourn turns into depression and emotional paralysis or the desire for warm clothing turns into coveting extraneous things in a catalogue, or when one man or woman desires the spouse of another, then desires become disordered in the historic understanding of things moving us away from and not toward God.
At the same time our basic desires seem to have something fundamentally good at their core, and I believe those desiring emotional intimacy with same gender folks are connecting to something very good and healthy in some basic, deep, fundamental sense…and at an ‘orientation’ sense emotionally and psychologically understood.
Most of us have spent very little time affirming the ‘good’ of emotional intimacy with same gender folks , and most of us have spent very little time conversationally in public discussing the ‘good’ of food desires that then become disordered desires and a gluttonous lifestyle and orientation.
Our failure to talk openly and often about our desires and disordered desires…and how/why we determine and discern the difference between good and disordered…is a fundamental ‘problem’ in the integrity of our ‘talk’ as Christians who seek to follow in the Way of Christ.
At many levels of ‘orientation’ we have punted and left those topics off the Christian conversational table…and the witness of those who call Jesus Lord has been significantly blunted, and the meaning of ‘grace’ blunted if not distorted.
I would like to have more conversation about the ‘goodness’ of same gender emotional intimacy and why that is important in our human journey.
[...] inadequate for our post-Christendom times. I asked if either position was missional? See that post here. As an alternative, I wanted to explore the incarnational logic of Missional community, a logic I [...]