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
I certainly hope one can be missional without affirming GLBT relationships. Otherwise, there really is no ‘conversation.’ If my disposition toward the heterosexual community is one that welcomes and transforms (and it is) then it would be strangely inconsistent to take another approach with people because of GLBT issues or orientations. Thanks for this post. I often read portions of your writings and enjoy your ability to bring clarity to difficult issues.
David,
Awesome post. Really look forward to reading the rest of them. As someone who lives and works in the midst of Toronto’s gay community this seems like it will be one of the most important discussions for the church to have. I too can’t help but feel like there has to be a third way because I don’t feel comfortable in either camp right now. I think your ‘welcomes and transforms’ is bang on!
Peace.
I’ve been fairly heavily influenced by 12 step groups, and I would only want to change your 3rd way to “welcomes and mutually transforms.” This, as you no doubt want to do, acknowledges that we are all in a moral mess, sexually and otherwise. By God, we are all moving towards Christ-like humanity through Spirit and community. Newcomer and oldtimer alike (and hetero and homosexual) affirm their continuing moral failure and continuing need for mercy and transformation. The Church needs to learn the posture of not “you’re broken and need Jesus” but “we (churchman and outsider) are broken and need Jesus.”
T,
Nice. “Welcomes and mutually transforms,” that’s really great.
“Welcomes and Transforms” is what I believe our posture should be to the entire watching world, regardless of the issue, culture, background. I look forward to seeing how you apply this to the GBLT community.
I like the way you’ve framed this, Dave. I’m reading Marin’s Love Is An Orientation with my church staff right now, and from what you’ve said so far it seems that your approach will compliment Marin’s.
The biggest question that I have with the “welcome and transform” language is, “How will this be heard by the GLBT community?” Regardless of what is meant by you, how is it perceived by the community? I hope you’ll address that in the following posts.
“T”
That says it perfectly “welcoming and mutually transforming”… this says where I am going on the second post on b.) redemptive community. Thanks, if you don’t mind I’m going to add it to the post!
Good way to restart many old conversations, and here are premises worth considering:
1. How/why do we in the Church deal with, refuse to deal with, ‘desires’ and disordered loves, like gluttony, materialism, covetousness, bitterness, etc, etc.?
2. Is the stalemate we have due in part to refusing to address sanctification issues on matters beyond sexuality that affect large sections of the church (and me!) like gluttony? We don’t know how to talk about grace and disordered loves at the same time for fear of controversy and being ‘judgmental’.
3. What keeps those in position #1 (homosexual practice not compatible with Christian teaching) from spending as much or more time on affirming the gifts and graces of those who are involved in homosexual practice? …since many of those in position #1 also clearly affirm the ‘sacred worth and dignity of all persons’, and would not think of denying gluttonous Christians their gifts and graces for all kinds of Christian ministry…
Great! Looking forward to the series! Honestly, I’m really glad you’re raising the idea of mutual transformation specifically in this area. I don’t think enough people are thinking the Church is about that.
David,
I too am curious how the “transform” language would be heard from the gay community. Every gay person I know who has an evangelical background and has left the church (4 of them), recoils at any hint of “reparative” type language or processes. It seems that transform is a more positive way of communicating the same sentiment of the neo-reformed camp.
I tend to think that the major error is not as much “non-affirming” OR “transformative” (which assumes “disrepair”) approaches, but rather fronting these “positions” in the course of a relationship. Like Collier suggests above, there is much to be said for affirming the dignity, graces and pursuits that lie underneath all the activity. Once trust is established (i.e. we know we genuinely care for one another) there is a much longer leash in conversation and disagreement (e.g. Andrew Marin’s emphasis).
Look forward to the posts.
Dave –
I serve as co-pastor at a young, urban, post-evangelical congregation in Denver. This issue is front and center for us and I’ve done quite a bit of wrestling with it personally. Simply, our current categories for handling the issue are insufficient to the magnitude of the task at hand. I’m reaaaaly glad you’re addressing this.
Hoping to glean some wisdom.
Peace.
In other words are you saying we all stand equally broken before the cross?
T –
great comment…love the way you think my friend
Dave,
Your first move, to emphasize sanctification as a reordering and controlling of desires, predisposes us to
hear the necessary “mutual” in community transformation. It seems that by emphasizing desire (which we all as humanity must deal with), you have taken this traditionally “cultural” debate as to whether GLBT relationships are right or wrong, and have replaced it with an overarching question of human autonomy? Should we, rather, CAN WE as humans morally control our desires without the live of God? Genious.
*Genius
Steven,
This thread reminded me of your idea to talk about membership requirements in terms of a desire for transformation, similar to AA’s. I think there’s something to that, and it’s relevant to this discussion.
Very powerful and persuasive. I posted on this within the context of the parable of the Good Samaritan but the idea of mutual transformation is much clearer. As to the “hint” of reparative there, if the understanding is that we are all sinners and in need of hearing the stories of the Gospel, the mutuality should be evident and seeks not necessarily to repair but to mutually grow, in shared time and space, in and toward Christ.
Great question David
The question is at once simple and complex. In a word yes, our community believes it is possible on good days, and hopes it is possible on not so good days to be missional towards the GLBT community. We affirm the person, we accept the reality of same gender attraction: that some members of our community have same gender attraction and that they may always have same gender attraction yet also believing that some these may have a transformational experience. This is where it becomes complex just as the reasons for same gender attraction are complex. What is a transformational experience? is it as simple as changing in one’s sexual attraction…. mmmm? Is it to accept one’s same gender attraction in the context of having a spiritual transformation that conforms to the image of Christ – Romans 12:2 – so that gay conforming identity is supplanted by Christ conforming identity and if that is so should we all both straight and gay submit our sexuality and attendant freedoms, rights and attractions to Christ?
Is it neither, both or more?
This is our reality in our context. The gay community many which have former Christ followers has been so maligned, misunderstood and marginalized that they are generally antognistic and at best tolerant yet still suspicious of us.
Also complex is the notion of being missional. What does it look like to go to the gay community? to be part of the gay community? How does one live redemptively while at the same being part of?
These are the things our community struggles with and engages in. We have some answers but many more questions
Either we’re transformational or we’re not ministering the gospel! Like you, Dave, I cannot accept same-sex relations as normative in God’s Kingdom. To do so would reject the very image in which God created us — male and female.
Yet, I think the evangelical church for far too long has simply asked these strugglers to white-knuckle their way through life. And, as you point out, our righteous indignation over this issue has allowed us to ignore our own heterosexual sin.
However, if the same power that raised Christ from the dead is available to us, then certainly re-ordering sexual desire is not too tall an order. Is not sanctification a “reparative therapy” of sorts for all of us?
“michaelrudzena says:
I too am curious how the “transform” language would be heard from the gay community. Every gay person I know who has an evangelical background and has left the church (4 of them), recoils at any hint of “reparative” type language or processes. It seems that transform is a more positive way of communicating the same sentiment of the neo-reformed camp. ”
I hear you on this. I could see this being problematic. As I read it and reflected a bit, I wonder if this might be a way of looking at it.
It seems to me that the language of mutual transformation is an invitation to allow your entire life, regardless of one’s orientation, be open before God, and the community. It seems to emphasize an honest evaluation of desire and the intention to allow God to reshape what is misshapen in each one.
The language then, doesn’t strike me as a repackaging of ‘non-affirming’ because of its emphasis on the need of all of us to have our desires reshaped by God’s Spirit. A person is welcomed into a community that is being transformed.
To that end, it is not a ‘welcome now let us show you where you are in need of transformation” but a ‘welcome, we are all being transformed, please join us in that’. Those are very different things in my mind.
I realize others might say that in a better way, but it helps me as I think about.
Its an interesting stab, David.
Although I do believe that “welcoming and mutually transforming” will not go over well with the gay community. I don’t see how it cannot stop “conversation” among those who are gay, or among those who “welcome and affirms.” I think the question that arises is, “Okay, when does the welcoming end, and the transforming begin?”
As soon as most gays would get a whiff that their desires are disordered (not just grredy desires but desires that are their sexual identity as they see it)and need to be transformed then, it becomes a question of “communal” oriented reparative therapy. Its hard to be “open” to such a community when communal values already indicate you are not one of us–unless of course–you already see a need that your desires are in need of ordering.
It is interesting that there have been no commentators (at least as I have read) who are a part of the “welcoming and affirming.”
Adam said:
It seems to me that the language of mutual transformation is an invitation to allow your entire life, regardless of one’s orientation, be open before God, and the community. It seems to emphasize an honest evaluation of desire and the intention to allow God to reshape what is misshapen in each one.
I could be down with that – I’m all about transformation and redemption – but what if a gay or lesbian member of your congregation experiences all kinds of positive transformation and spiritual growth in their life, and simultaneously embraces his or her homosexuality? I know many people for whom coming out was the catalyst for all kinds of positive changes and healthier behaviors – including connecting with God – and I’m wondering if the “mutually transforming” model that you’ve posited has space for a gay Christian to view being gay as a good thing, rather than something “misshapen” within them? Would someone like that be able to serve in a leadership position in your church or preach a sermon?
Certainly, you have every right to decide what your boundaries are as a congregation, but if your welcome of gay people contains an expectation that, at some point, they will transform in such a way that they eventually agree that homosexual practice is morally wrong and somehow “broken”, then I think it’s best to be honest about that.
In an individual relationship, you can put the whole “gay question” to the side, but in a church – no matter how emerging or missional or whatever – you can’t. Either you will or won’t perform and celebrate gay marriages/commitment ceremonies. Either you will or won’t ordain GLBT Christians called to ministry. And if you won’t, then your welcome has a limit – a limit that will be experienced as hurtful, offensive, and/or excluding by many GLBT Christians – even if the last thing you want to do is hurt anybody.
If “mutual transformation” does not extend to you being open to God changing your mind about homosexuality, then personally – I would much rather hear “We recognize that where we’re at with this is painful for many people, who experience it as rejection, and we hate that, but we feel like this is what God would have us do.” than “Hey, come join our mutual transformation party! (but some of you have to transform a lot more than others.)
My two cents – from the non-emerging, non-missional, non-evangelical peanut gallery
Timely…
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/music/interviews/2010/jenniferknapp-apr10.html
Great to see you tackling this, it is something we have been wrestling with too……
http://www.redeemercentral.com/index.php/the_collective/article/grace_in_dangerous_places/
Alot going on here … great comments that have spurred me on in my own thinking-reflecting.
To those who rightfully ask about how the “reparative” theme will be received by the GBLT peoples … to me … as will be discussed … the fundamental move of entering into the redemptive life is the subordination of “ALL” desire to the life in God in Christ for His Mission in the world – of reconciliation and restoration of all things. For anyone … (and at this point the finger points squarely at traditional evangelical Christians and their consumerist idolatries) …to self-describe any desire as a non-negotiable … “I’ve got myself all figured out” stance … is to say I have no need of God. We must recognize that the redemptive community calls for the subordination – even relativization – of all desire … and this includes heterosexual sexuality to the Kingdom alongside all other desires … for there is plenty idolatry going on here in the church. Only by modeling this and entering into this ourselves does there then become the possibility to invite others into the same reconciling work of redemption God is working in the world … we cannot even judge another outside of participating in this space together …
More to come I’m sure in the posts and comments to follow.
“Welcome and Mutually Transforms” still sounds heteronormative, which is probably what you’re going for, I suppose. In short, I don’t think any amount of tip-toeing around certain language is really going to change much in terms of the perception from those outside your church. I can’t imagine being a member of the LGBTQ Community, who has accepted and affirmed my own sexuality, willfully going to a community that wants to “transform” my sexuality.
Again, that might not be what you’re trying to get across, but I think it largely reads that way, especially since you’ve been open about the fact that you’re not affirming of those within the LGBTQ Community. I realize when you say “mutually transform” you want individuals to feel as if they’re joining with others being transformed, but I will echo Christy’s comments, that it seems as if you’re expecting individuals to change their sexuality.
There seems to be a lot of well-meaning Christians who don’t necessarily hate people but who also don’t necessarily accept people either. This is somewhere I’ve been (and somewhere I still am, in some areas), but I don’t think many Christians realize how damaging it is to hear things like “Hate the sin, love the sinner” when the “sin” you are referring to (a person’s sexuality) is an integral part of their understanding of self.
While I realize I’m in the minority here, I still can’t believe this is an issue for the Church. I think the Church as a whole is decades behind here. Not only are we decades behind in terms of accepting the reasons why a person might be a homosexual, we are also decades behind in terms of grace, acceptance, and love of those within the LGBT Community. People are still hung up on certain Biblical interpretations that do not allow them to love, so to speak (those biblical passages are a topic for another discussion entirely). This seems to miss the entire point of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospel.
In his letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr. states that there was a time when “the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society…Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo.” What King said in 1963 of the white middle-class church sounds all too familiar today, both in terms of the church’s attempts at racial reconciliation and in regards to its stance on homosexuality. Ask any young non-Christian (or Christian, for that matter) what their problem is with the church and a majority of the time they will give you the same answer—intolerance. Yet we should not only be tolerant of the other, but we should affirm their humanity (and their sexuality) in Christ. One cannot claim to love a person and yet deny them their sexuality any more than a person can claim to love someone and yet deny them of their ethnic heritage. This is called conditional love, and it was condemned by Jesus.
While I doubt that the Church at large has the courage to take a stand that is affirming of homosexuality, I do not doubt that there are those within it that feel for our marginalized LGBT neighbors. Yet sadly so many of those who do will become stuck in the quicksand of moderation. King said that it was not the KKK that presented the biggest obstacle for the black community during civil rights, but the “white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice.” In the same way, there will be no justice until the straight Christian moderate takes a stance of love. If an unjust law is truly any that “a numerical power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself,” then we must not tolerate any stance that de-affirms all sexual orientations other than heterosexual.
isaac
Hey Isaac,
Thanks for coming onto the blog … thanks for taking the time to express this position so well … Can I ask a question of you seriously? And it’s a question I’ll ask in the next post … so I’m open to learning here from you … Putting the issue of GLBT aside, is there every a time when desire is questioned as the basis for moral identity? Even understanding that desire formation is not one’s choice (I kinda of assume this in whatever way one feels it is pre-determined), is desire whether it be G or L or T or B or indeed Q …whether it be hetero-monogamous, hetero – not monogamous … I could go on … is there ever a situation when desire in general (or one’s “given sexual desire”) is questioned as the basis of one’s identity or one’s moral bodily inhabitation?
Isaac,
Thank you for joining the conversation.
My meditations on the issue of homosexuality always lead me back to the issue of sexuality in general. The prominence of GLBT controversy within the evangelical world to me is an outgrowth of our cultural idolatry of sex. The apotheosis of sex is the beam in our eye. Until we take it out, we cannot see the issue of homosexuality clearly.
David, are you suggesting that our desire (in this case sexual desire) should not be an unquestionable staple of one’s identity? Or to put it another way, is there any desire off the table when it comes to the invitation of God to become truly human?
Randy,
…
Again, this is where I am heading as well … although with a nuance … there is nowhere where this cultural idolatry of sexuality is more prevalent than in evangelicalism … it lies at the heart of a naive and grotesquely inadequate doctrine of sanctification, desire etc… (BTW apotheosis … great word … but you might want to explain it when you use it
Michael …
I’m seriously seeking input on this question I put to Isaac “is there ever a situation when desire in general is questioned as the basis of one’s identity or one’s moral bodily inhabitation?” Before I give my take on this, how would you answer that? In what sense does desire in general determine our moral framework, our identity?
Well said Isaac. Much to think about. Thank you.
I do not know where that little slogan came from but you nail it that it is insulting and as you say, actually a very unChristian-like statement. Rather than affirmation, as that is what I gather is the end goal, is it possible to suggest that the key idea is “love the sinner, regardless.” If I understand David, and if my understanding is off I apologize, the question of affirmation of any particular lifestyle, etc., is not really the issue, but affirmation of each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, who exist as a community, working for, with, by and through God toward an ultimate reconciliation of God and world. And as we are growing together we are coming to a understanding that our personal identity is tied into Christ and is not defined by our desires/bents or whatever which seems to be the way apart from de-affirming evangelical and all affirming emerging.
Are people born gay/lesbian/bisexual? This is the crux of the issue, right? If God created someone with a homosexual orientation, then the argument goes that the Church has no business trying to transform that orientation, mutually or otherwise. To suggest that such an orientation even needs to be transformed would then be understood to be pejorative.
Of course, one could question this idea by saying that Scripture is more normative and binding than our orientation or desires. (I think David might be going this direction in the above posts, though I could be wrong because I read them quickly). If this is the direction, then I would cast my vote with the normative and authoritative nature of Scripture, over and above our personal desires, orientations, or personalities. We must obey Scripture, whether we are predisposed to or not.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that God would not in fact expect our lives to change in order to come in line with Scripture, as long as our natural “orientation” would be violated through such a change. We are back to my original question in this case: are people truly born with a sexual orientation other than a heterosexual one? Unfortunately I don’t think this is a question that can be definitively answered.
So it seems to me we live in this tension. Just like we must teach from the Scriptures about how we are to live ethically and financially, we must teach what Scripture says about sexuality. Of course, as many have already said, this teaching will challenge the heterosexually inclined as much as the homosexually inclined. Both, in my opinion, must submit to Scripture if we believe Scripture to be inspired, authoritative, and normative.
What I appreciate about the tones of the discussion is that it is clear that those who have posted love those who have embraced the homosexual lifestyle. The question is not whether to treat the gay community with love or to shun them; the question is whether to accept their homosexual lifestyle in the context of our communities of faith or to openly proclaim that Christ longs to transform all ways of life that do not fit with Scripture. If the Church will begin actually loving the gay community in word AND deed, prior to any attempt to transform them, I think many of these debates may fade…
Kevin
I may not be getting at the heart of the issue but perhaps I can sneak up on it a bit (by the way, this is ridiculously long).
It seems this discussion (not here specifically but in general) has become somewhat convoluted due to various understandings and uses of language as well as various understandings of socialization as it relates to God and the world.
For instance, what does it mean to have identity in Christ? Can one have self-identity in Christ without examining one’s own sexuality? It would seem to me that an affirmation of one’s own sexuality (either heterosexual, homosexual, or somewhere in between, as most of us are) would be an integral part of coming to understand who one is as a child of God. Some would say we have “idolized” sexuality; others would say we have in fact “demonized” sexuality. What do we mean by this?
It seems to me this demonization is inherent in how we talk about sex. Desires are grouped with “lusts of the flesh,” etc. Apparently the only proper desire is one man’s desire for his wife, and her desire for him. This all seems tied to some mythological understanding of the garden myth, whereby individuals believe that God created a man, and then a woman, told them to have sex, and thus humanity and history were born. Everything remotely sexual gets tied to “the fall” (which is in my opinion a completely misunderstanding of both creation accounts in Genesis). One is free to believe this, but I think such a belief is extremely problematic and leads to the type of confusion we’re discussing now.
Many people I know seem to operate under the assumption that there is some sort of normative sexual identity, that being heterosexual, monogamous, married, etc. Religious persons will often take what have become normative views of sexuality (and anything else) and say that, because it has become the dominant view of white privileged Western society, it is blessed by God, i.e. what has become “normal” by society’s standard has nothing to do with socialization or various systems of power but is instead ordained and/or created by God. (E.g. heterosexuality is considered the dominant sexuality, ergo God created men and women as heterosexuals and any deviation from this path is due to misguided desires, sin, etc etc . In a different but altogether similar way, one might say: God created men and women as heterosexuals and any deviation from this path is due to misguided desires, sin, etc etc, ergo heterosexuality is the dominant sexuality and should be considered normative).
This creates a great deal of personal and social confusion.
As Kevin has just stated, there is a great deal of ignorance regarding sexual orientation: are people born with a God-given sexual orientation? If so, what are the implications? Do people develop certain sexual orientations? Again, what would be the implications? It seems to me that either way you end up at the idea that homosexuality as a sexual orientation is no more inherently wrong or right than heterosexuality. If individuals are born this way, then it seems to me absurd to think that homosexuality is somehow wrong (sin, a deformation, etc). This is very similar to the arguments white Christians made during slavery. Of course someone couldn’t choose which color they were, but since they were born black, the best they can do is work for us, try to be white, and hope God forgives them.
Let’s go another route. If individuals are in fact born with no essential sexuality but instead develop it over time, then one must admit that heterosexuality is also something that is developed. I wonder how many heterosexuals would say they “developed” their attraction to the opposite sex? Perhaps a lot would. Either way, if it is pure social construction then once again I don’t see how anyone can arrive at any sort of normative sexuality that isn’t somehow defined by dominant culture.
Well what about scripture?
I wanted to avoid bringing scripture into this specific discussion but alas, someone else has brought it up. What do you mean when you say scripture is binding and/or normative? If one means that there are certain rules, commands, lifestyles, etc that are put forth in Scripture and that they are binding, I would disagree. If, however, one means that as we as individuals engage the Word we are somehow, in the here and now, transformed (although no one can be sure in exactly what way) then I would probably agree.
There is by no means one single universal “Biblical” stance on any issue, sexual or otherwise. What we do have, I believe, are texts that were written by individuals hoping to understand themselves, the world, and God. If one were to attempt to extract a sexual ethic from Scripture, it would seem to me it should focus less on who’s having sex with who, where, how many times, and within what type of relationship (married, dating, etc) and more a sexual ethic that avoids any type of exploitation or objectification (of the self or the other). This might mean different things for different people in different social contexts. I am by no means promoting a type of relativism or even subjectivism. I’m simply saying that it is impossible, I believe, to say that Scripture provides us with any sort of hard and fast rule regarding homosexuality. Instead, the word becomes Word when it transforms us, but it is not for you or me to tell any other individual how to be transformed.
It is purely misguided, in my opinion, to say that being a homosexual is somehow on the level of a “desire” any more than heterosexuality is simply a “desire.” Surely individuals have desires and act on them in ways that are sometimes harmful and sinful, but to reduce a person’s sexual orientation or sexual identity down to a “desire” that is either morally wrong or right, no matter which criterion one is using, is both damaging and hurtful, no matter how much one claims to love those individuals.
I appreciate, to some extent, individuals who want to “live in the tension,” but honestly I think such a stance is privileged and does not adequately take into account the human lives at stake here. The Church, in my opinion, cannot afford to simply live in the tension anymore. It was not living in the tension that got Christ crucified, it was taking a stance with the marginalized regardless of how much it offended the political and religious leaders of his time.
It is easy to be straight person and claim that heterosexuality is normative. If things were suddenly reversed, and it somehow became unnatural, wrong, and sinful to be attracted to the opposite sex…I wonder how many of us would be willing to accept that our current love for the opposite sex needed transformed?
I understand that I have emphasized perhaps a component of this discussion that is not at the heart of it, but to say “we all need to transform certain aspects of our sexual desires, and — oh, by the way, Scripture, society and the church condemns you,” I’m not going to take to kindly to it if I’m a member of the LGBTQ community. I’m not going to be a part of any group that loves me but hates a part of me that I have come to terms with.
I realize that there are certain readers of the Scripture who will say things like, “Just because you’re okay with it doesn’t mean God is” etc. However, it is usually only individuals who have never truly known or listened to someone who has been marginalized that say these types of things. Such a statement, in my opinion, is simply veiled fear, ignorance, and malice.
isaac
Isaac,
I’m not really here, or on this blog to debate you, or “win an argument. I am sure i will say things that are hurtful to you and others too … I’m not trying to do that so I’m sorry if that’s happened.
I’m seriously trying to understand here… you said “It is purely misguided, in my opinion, to say that being a homosexual is somehow on the level of a “desire” any more than heterosexuality is simply a “desire.”
I think what you’re saying is being homosexual is a much larger social construct than merely the actual same sex attraction. Is that right? If so, I would already agree with that as well as the fact that heterosexual is a much larger social construct. In fact I would say the way say American Wall Street urban culture is heterosexual is different from say being heterosexual in Japan versus say being heterosexual in a baptist church.
So I guess I agree with you “to reduce a person’s sexual orientation or sexual identity down to a “desire” that is either morally wrong or right” is simplistic and a misread.
Have I read you correctly?
If so, would you agree, that at least some of desire is part of a larger cultural formation?
Just asking .. not trying to pin you down or into a corner or anything.
Something I should have said much earlier on:
I am first of all grateful to even be entering into conversation with anyone here and have been quite impressed with the level of openness and thoughtfulness I’ve seen on this blog and in this discussion.
If I have in any way come across as argumentative or abrasive, I apologize. However, this is something I am passionate about and thus often times tend to use strong language in getting my point across. I ask everyone reading for grace.
David, I completely agree that the way we as humans express our sexuality is very much impacted by social context and the social structures that dominate our lives.
I think your understanding of what I was saying is correct. I believe sexual orientation is much more than just desire. I think the biggest problem, or maybe point of confusion, I have, is that it seems many people understand heterosexuality to be normative, and thus any deviation from this is just some sort of fallen “desire.” Often it seems homosexuality is regarded as a lustful desire that needs to be corrected whereas heterosexuality is seen as a healthy normal way of life. Surely there are people that would say that there are many heterosexuals that need their desires corrected, but it seems that people see homosexuality only as a DESIRE that needs corrected, as opposed to being an actual sexual orientation of individuals who then have desires.
I’m not speaking very clearly here but I’m finding it difficult to express what I’m thinking.
As to your question earlier (I think). Certainly our desires should be questioned and reflected on in light of scripture, experience, etc. (whether they be economic, sexual, or any number of things). However, sexual orientation seems to be much larger than sexual desire. I’m not sure if I’m being clear….
Isaac,
This is helpful, thanks for the effort … really appreciate it.
One of the things I’m getting (and liking) in this conversation is a small taste of what I hope David means by “welcoming and mutually transforming.”
By David’s and Isaac’s conversation, I’m already seeing how I have taken so many of my own practices and desires and even parts of what I consider my own identity as givens, or rather how I’ve attached to them a sense of entitlement that is beyond questioning, even by Christ’s purposes.
I find the last comment by Isaac particularly interesting (Isaac, I don’t want you to feel like you have to address it if you’re growing tired of the conversation; you’ve already given a great deal.), especially as it ends with the idea that sexual orientation seems to be much larger than sexual desire.
As you guys mentioned, there are several ways in which this is true. There are almost always communal bonds at stake, not just with one’s partner but also one’s “people”, one’s community and friends. People frame their identities not merely as persons having this or that sexual “desire” but also as people who are faithful to their particular communities. I wonder which pulls us and shapes our sense of identity more, especially on this issue, our desires or our ties to our communities?
As I think about all these things, I’m reminded of Jesus’ call to priortize him and following him even over our communal ties to parents or children or spouse. Not a favorite passage of mine. We often think of or present Christianity as saying “you have to give up or resist this or that desire to be loyal to Jesus.” But it’s really more radical, more exacting, than that. It’s much larger than our desires. Jesus’ call to follow him is clearly a call to subrogate our desires and our identities and the communal bonds that form and maintain them to Jesus. Everything that would come under the broad definition of “our life” (everything we would lose by death) is what is up for transformation and redirection by Christ.
But I don’t think this is what the LGBTQ sees the largely hetero Church doing or even saying Jesus is actually about in America. We have implicitly said that Jesus doesn’t have any serious correction to give to the typical American way of life, other than to add tithing and church attendance. It’s a club with a cross on the building, claiming to be formed and frequented by God himself, and it discriminates on the basis of sex and sexual orientation for who can join.
Maybe part of these discussions in real life has to be particular and personal confessions by hetero Christians of how they’ve flatly ignored Jesus’ Lordship because it has threatened this or that community bond or standing, or some other part of what we want “our” life to be like. Isaac and the LGBTQ community are right in that there is a double standard for what is required at the door of the Church, what’s required to “be Jesus’ disciple” as we’ve implicitly redefined it around us. That has to change, and it has to start with those already in the building, those claiming to be God’s friends. We’ve got to have a few more serious stories of our own about what we have given up to have the pearl. We have to reframe our own discipleship.
“T” …
would you quit writing my posts for me … geezzz
Sorry David!
I’ve posted that last comment at my own blog with a link here to try to send folks over to join this important conversation.
The multiple ways Jesus frames what loving him and/or being his disciple means hits the core of these issues for hetero and homosexual alike. (Okay, no more ’till your next post!)
[...] let him deny himself [the rest of you are already good to go].” Dave Fitch is hosting a difficult and important conversation at his blog, and with much grace all around. The following is my latest comment, which I probably should have [...]
I also appreciate this conversation. Thanks for your thoughts on discipleship especially T. I wanted to respond specifically to portions of Isaac’s words from above. I should also say that I know I don’t have it all figured out, but I want to put my two cents in on some very important issues that we shouldn’t skip over too quickly. Know these words are spoken in love and hope.
-You said, “I wanted to avoid bringing scripture into this specific discussion but alas, someone else has brought it up.”
I respond: If we do not base our conversations about theology on Scripture, what else do we base them on?
-You said, “What do you mean when you say scripture is binding and/or normative? If one means that there are certain rules, commands, lifestyles, etc that are put forth in Scripture and that they are binding, I would disagree.”
I respond: We are in fundamental disagreement here then, for I would state that clearly there are certain commands put forth in Scripture that are binding. What I mean when I say that Scripture is binding and normative is precisely that—it has always been the historical understanding of the Church and is the current understanding of the vast majority of the Church that the Scriptures are received revelation. God has spoken through his Word, and has revealed himself in his Word, and has shown us the way to life through his Word. The Scriptures are not a collection of existentialist thoughts about what it means to be in relationship with God, or as you say it “texts that were written by individuals hoping to understand themselves, the world, and God.” If this is all Scripture is, self-help literature recounting different ways to encounter or speak about God, what good is it? It certainly seems optional. For the Church, the Bible is God’s revelation. Though we do not know the precise ways that God has chosen to reveal himself in the words of Scripture, and though there are areas of tension we can never fully grasp within those words, we believe the canon of Scripture to be the inspired Word of God, God-breathed and life-giving. Certainly human authors were the agents through whom this revelation of God was mediated, and certainly they did not act as lifeless scribes, writing whatever was whispered in their ears like robots. But their involvement in the production of the text, even the shining forth of their own agendas and personalities, does not in any way detract from Scripture’s inspiration and given-ness. Just as Christ is both human and divine, God chose to work through human agents to portray his divine truth; Scripture is also incarnational. This understanding is foundational to any proper understanding of the place of Scripture in the life of the Church. It is not our “best and greatest” book about God; it is the inspired Word OF God.
-Instead of the above definition of what it means for Scripture to be normative, you said, “If, however, one means that as we as individuals engage the Word we are somehow, in the here and now, transformed (although no one can be sure in exactly what way) then I would probably agree.”
I respond: This sounds a whole lot like the current en vogue deconstructionist readings: the text only has meaning when I assign it meaning, and there is no objective or universal meaning in the text of Scripture. Our fascination with our own thoughts about the text, and with polyvalence, the text’s ability to mean different things to different people, has taken us down this road. So as we as individuals interact with Scripture and are transformed, then it is normative for us. But not necessarily for others! Am I understanding you right? (I could totally be missing the boat on what you’re thinking here, but I thought this was the direction you were going). If so, we fundamentally disagree again. Yes, Scripture has the power to transform in the here and now. By its own witness it is sharper than any double-edged sword and penetrates our souls. But it is true not because it transforms us in the here and now; it is true because it is God’s revelation, and he has chosen to speak in it and through it.
-You said, “There is by no means one single universal “Biblical” stance on any issue, sexual or otherwise.”
I respond: I don’t even know where to begin with this statement! Again, while there are many human writers over centuries of composition, Scripture is in fact a unity. There may be conflicting ideas present, as I mentioned before, based on variant contexts to which Scripture is addressed, but the message is a unity. You hint at this yourself when you say that extrapolating a sexual ethic from Scripture should focus on avoiding any type of exploitation or objectification. Where do you get such an idea? How can you assume that such a thread runs through Scripture if there is no universal biblical stance on this issue? Surely there are some texts which encourage exploitation, and others which justify objectification? But there are not, of course. That is what I mean. Scripture points in a direction, and though there are certain issues that seem to have conflicting viewpoints, such as the role of women in the leadership of the Church, on the whole Scripture is amazingly consistent in its witness about God and what he wants from humanity.
This brings us to the crux of the issue, what started the conversation. About following God’s requirements sexually, you said, “This might mean different things for different people in different social contexts. I am by no means promoting a type of relativism or even subjectivism. I’m simply saying that it is impossible, I believe, to say that Scripture provides us with any sort of hard and fast rule regarding homosexuality. Instead, the word becomes Word when it transforms us, but it is not for you or me to tell any other individual how to be transformed.”
I respond: Though you say you are not promoting relativism, that is exactly what you are promoting. I do not mean to be harsh, but that is the truth. Your thinking seems to be coming out of the postmodern antipathy toward any metanarrative or overarching truth as coercive and demeaning of other viewpoints. Scripture never demeans, but it certainly demeans viewpoints. There are certain ways of living and thinking and acting that lead to life, and other ways which lead to death. And like I said, Scripture is amazingly consistent in its presentation of most theological and ethical issues. Certainly this is the case with homosexuality. I believe it is absolutely crucial to go the direction David seems to be promoting, to love and engage with folks who have embraced the gay lifestyle, and to truly do so, not merely to pull a fast one on them in order to change who they are. Though I believe this is crucial, I also believe it is crucial to proclaim the truth from Scripture. And that truth seems to me to be that even if you believe with all your heart that you were born with a homosexual orientation, following Christ means re-orienting your life around his ways. It means submitting. It means giving up my right to be who I am “naturally” in order to be made into the likeness of Jesus Christ.
Scripture speaks clearly, from beginning to almost the very end, with a consistent voice and direction on this issue. Certainly it is not a major focus of the Scriptures, but then again Scripture is radically theocentric. It’s not about us at all! Nevertheless, God makes it very clear what his will is in regard to human sexuality.
Brevard Childs, in his “Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context,” says it well: “The recent attempt of some theologians to find a biblical opening, if not warrant, for the practice of homosexuality stands in striking disharmony with the Old Testament’s understanding of the relation of male and female. The theological issue goes far beyond the citing of occasional texts which condemn the practice (Lev. 20:13)… It turns on the divine structuring of human life in the form of male and female with the potential of greatest joy or deepest grief. The Old Testament continually witnesses to the distortion of God’s intention for humanity in heterosexual aberrations (Judg. 20; 2 Sam 13). Similarly the Old Testament views homosexuality as a distortion of creation which falls into the shadows outside the blessing” (194).
I am not interested in proclaiming from the rooftops that homosexuality is a distortion and an aberration—not at all. But I am very concerned that we not, in our concern to respect how Scripture may be transforming YOU, to ignore the clear witness of the whole of Scripture. This would be an even greater danger than the rightly dreaded judgmentalism of sections of evangelicalism.
Kevin
Kevin,
We do, I believe, have a fundamental disagreement regarding the nature of the Biblical text, thus making this conversation difficult at best, if not very likely impossible. I hesitate to even respond to your comments simply out of respect for everyone involved so as to avoid the overdone and altogether boring back-and-forth arguing from different viewpoints that simply becomes tired and annoying to everyone else reading.
Kevin,
We do, I believe, have a fundamental disagreement regarding the nature of the Biblical text, thus making this conversation difficult at best, if not very likely impossible. I hesitate to even respond to your comments simply out of respect for everyone involved so as to avoid the overdone and altogether boring back-and-forth arguing from different viewpoints that simply becomes tired and annoying to everyone else reading.
This conflict we have just entered into, that being the conflict regarding the nature of the Biblical text, is precisely why I said I did not want to bring scripture into this discussion, not because Scripture is not important, but because this discussion is not at the heart of the conversation taking place in relation to David’s original post. Again, I hesitate to even write a response on here, most importantly because this is David’s blog and the last thing I want to do is take attention way from the discussion he is trying to put forth here. I also hesitate because it is very easy for groups of people to invalidate the beliefs of an individual simply because they are different.
That being said, I can’t really avoid a response (David, I completely understand if you would rather us not have this conversation on this comment thread and will not be at all offended if you express a desire for us to have this discussion elsewhere).
Going into this, I should say that in no way do I believe my views on Scripture in any way reflect what might be considered a traditional or an orthodox view, nor can they be traced back to one given tradition within Christianity. That is to say, this is simply my opinion and in many ways I don’t feel all that compelled to justify it.
You are completely misunderstanding my viewpoints if from my comments you have extracted the notion that I somehow see the Biblical text as some sort of humanistic self-help book. That is precisely the opposite of what I think it is. I believe, however, that most Christians do in fact read the Bible as a sort of self-help manual, or rule book, or guide book, and then deify it. That is to say, they project onto it the notion that their understanding of it is in fact The Understanding of it, or, to put it more pointedly…I believe there are certain individuals who use tradition and/or their own interpretation of Scripture and claim that it is Divine. This is simple projection and illusion. It has been done since the Scriptures existed, and it leads to a very awful state of sin, in my opinion. It is the awful state of sin the Institutional Church currently finds itself in despite it’s attempts to claim to always be in the right.
When one speaks about God or the Word, and believes they have actually grasped God or the Word, once and for all, I believe they have essentially done away with God and deified themselves and the social order. This seems to me a serious form of idolatry if not blasphemy.
Again, I think language is at the heart of the issue here.
In my earlier comment when I said that I did not believe there was a single Biblical stance on any issue, nor were their any binding commands, perhaps I was overstating the case and/or not being as clear as I probably should have been. Surely the command to love God and neighbor is binding for anyone who believes. However, it is not binding in the sense that it provides set rules to follow and not follow. This understanding of Law is precisely, I believe, what Christ was attempting to do away with.
I will say, that I do not believe the Scriptures were written so that they could be used to call out such-and-such an act as wrong for all times and all peoples. I believe there is a major difference in saying that one can look at the texts and say, for example, that the they condemn homosexuality specifically, or premarital sex, or anything else like that, and saying that they promote love and respect for all people.
I don’t see anywhere in what I’ve written that should necessarily lead someone to believe that I don’t believe the Word of God is absolutely a gift from God. However, I think what one means by this is extremely important. No, I do not believe God, as some metaphysical being, audibly spoke the words, nor do I believe God as metaphysical being “inspired” individuals to write down certain words in the sense that God reached down the divine finger and put thoughts into writers’ heads.
I see a difference between Word and words. The Word comes from God and is manifest in Christ, the words are the expression of certain believing individuals in attempts to understand God who reveals through Word. The Word is not only seen in words, or language, but also through actions, thoughts, feelings, etc. Whereas the words we have at our disposal are “fixed”, the Word, in my opinion, seems to have a much more dynamic character. This is not to say that the words and The Word are completely separate, for they are inextricably linked, but to say that the words are necessarily one in the same as The Word, seems misguided. Thus, I do not believe that Scripture is identical with God’s self-revelation.
Thus, the words may be read in such a way that they condemn homosexuality (and they may not be read that way). However, I do not believe The Word condemns homosexuality.
Finally, I think there is indeed a difference between pluralism and relativism. The quote you used from my comment to argue that I was a relativist was misunderstood, I think. I do believe that the way we understand scripture is inextricably tied to our place in time and history. If one wants to argue otherwise, that is to say, that there are certain beliefs and/or interpretations that are objectively and universally true for all time and all people, it would seem to me that they would have to be able to find some sort of objective and universal criterion for which to prove this to be so. Not only would such an endeavor be meaningless, in my opinion, it would be impossible.
Again, I’m inclined to apologize for such frivolous talk such as this, and hope that this whole endeavor has not completely distracted all of us from the matter at hand.
*Apparently I had some issues pasting that over from a word document
I hope to deal with this Scripture question … and propose a particular logic consistent with Mission/incarnation … in the third of 3 posts to follow…
thanks for the good stuff
just an FYI – on McKnight’s blog, there is a post about the Jennifer Knapp interview in CT (her return to music after 7 years and her coming out). The difference between the posts here and the responses there are telling and saddening.
Hey Gang. Great discussion here. I think Isaac brought up a really interesting point when noting that many people will try to make normative “the dominant view of white privileged Western society.”
Some will say in response–”But affirming GLBTQ identities has become the dominant view of white privileged Western society.” This is an interesting point that could be argued by both sides. It’s the old (and tiring) battle over, “who gets to be the prophetic voice here.” Never-the-less, I do think we do tend to make this a white Western person’s conversation.
For instance, if we *truly* wanted to make it a non-white, non-western conversation, then we would have to deal with the issue of polygamy. Our brothers and sisters in countries like Kenya or Ghana deal with this at the civil and ecclesial level all the time. Furthermore, there is MUCH more biblical support for polygamy than any other alternative sexual/familial structure that Western societies are opening up to.
So–will those who support GLBTQ identities as consistent with life in God’s Kingdom also be open to polygamous marriages in Africa, or for that matter in North America? I think consistency and a desire to raise the conversation above white-western domination of sexual norms would demand that they do so.
Matt,
You bring up a good point, especially the “who gets to be the prophet voice?” question.
I think I would use essentially the same criterion as before. Again, as in the case with any relationship between any people (and now any number of people) I think what is important is: is there exploitation? Objectification? Mutual consent? I am not going to say “All polygamous relationships are good/bad, right/wrong, etc” just as I would not say “All heterosexual relationships are good/bad, right/wrong.”
In the case of polygamy being a cultural norm, as it is in certain countries other than the U.S., again, if all women and all men involved are consenting and no one is objectified, etc. I am not going to tell them they are “wrong” or “bad.”
From what I have observed in the United States in terms of polygamous relationships, it seems often times there appears to be some coercion involved, which I certainly do not support. However, I would suspect that this is not always the case, and thus I would say the same thing I said before.
I do think it’s important to ask why or how this discussion factors into the discussion of the LGBTQ Community and Christianity.
What I mean is this: The primary reason I am affirming of LGBTQ relationships is not because they can be “proven” culturally acceptable, or biological, or socially constructed, biblically supported, etc. I support them because from what I have witnessed they are loving, life-affirming relationships and I cannot imagine God having a problem with any loving, life-affirming relationship, and I in no way want to be a part of any institution that denies love.
This is where people often say things like “Well what if your relationship with your mistress is loving and life-affirming” etc. I think that misses the point completely and is usually a tactic used to eschew the heart of the matter.
First of all, great thoughts Matt. Really made me think. I think we get so caught up in our bubble and the ongoing debates in our own context that we forget the related issues at stake beyond those contexts. So thanks. I promise this is the last I’ll post on the issue. If I am in the “wrong room” or on the wrong wavelength, I apologize. But I must respond briefly to what you said in your next to last paragraph, Isaac:
“What I mean is this: The primary reason I am affirming of LGBTQ relationships is not because they can be “proven” culturally acceptable, or biological, or socially constructed, biblically supported, etc. I support them because from what I have witnessed they are loving, life-affirming relationships and I cannot imagine God having a problem with any loving, life-affirming relationship, and I in no way want to be a part of any institution that denies love.”
Two main things in response. First, you lumped “biblically supported” in with culturally acceptable. This gets at the heart of the problem. I suspect you want to affirm the Bible when it makes you feel good, when it “transforms” you, when it speaks about building others up and how loving God is, etc. These are all wonderful aspects of the Bible, but the Bible also speaks truth. And part of what it means to be transformed by the Bible is to be “converted” in the technical sense of the word: to have your mind changed, to be convicted of where your life is not in line with the call of Christ, to discover how God wants to shape you and mold you into more of the image of his Son. This is often painful, and we often don’t want to undergo such transformation. I don’t want to let go of those habits and relationships and thought patterns that might be ingrained in me, or fun for me, or a part of me. But submitting to Christ and to discipleship means submitting to change, even when we don’t want to. This even means submitting to those aspects of the Christian life that don’t seem “right” to you. How can it be loving and life-affirming to deny loving, life-affirming relationships, for example? Well, God has a standard and a will, and homosexual relationships are outside of that standard and will. We affirm the people, and love them, and embrace them. We include them in our communities, and even seek out relationships with them, sharing life together to the extent possible. But this doesn’t change God’s standard. So when the rubber meets the road, we cannot affirm the relationship. How that plays out is probably a little different at every place that tries to practice this “loving but not affirming” stance. But we have no other choice; this is God’s standard and this was Jesus’ practice. Though he loved and accepted all, he consistently called people to difficult aspects of discipleship, even when it seemed harsh or unloving (rich young ruler, comment to the man who wanted to follow him to “let the dead bury their own dead,” instruction to woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, etc.).
Second, you stated that you did not want to be a part of an institution that denied love. As we both know, the Bible teaches that God is love. And the Church, if it acts as Christ’s body on earth, his instrument to reconcile humanity to himself, will be nothing less than the embodiment of God’s love. But what is love? Is love always affirming? Does love always make us feel good? I think this is precisely where we are on different pages. I believe love, as an action, is often very far from affirming. It is downright confrontational at times. It is difficult and messy at times. As a parent, sometimes I have to get in my daughter’s face. I have to tell her like it is. I have to call her into line. Am I failing to love her in these moments, or am I showing her a far greater love than I would be by simply affirming her choices and letting her be who she “naturally” is? I believe it is the role of the Church to love people enough to tell the truth. That doesn’t mean we have a “change your life or we don’t love you” mentality. Far from it! This is where the Church historically has gotten it wrong. In all sorts of different ways, we have called for those whose lives we deem to be out of line with the biblical standard to change. Once they change, we will embrace them. This is certainly not love. We must truly love people, but we must not FAIL to love them by not telling the whole truth. In the context of our relationships with them, we tell them what God has to say about how life should be lived. In conversation and the sharing of life, we can show them the path toward full discipleship, not only in the sexual realm but in all areas. And we share our own lives, openly sharing where our lives must come into conformity with the call of Christ. This is mutual transformation.
I’ll stop now. Please know, again, that I don’t have it all figured out, and I have not lived this process out (I should have said that up front!). Please hear these words in the context of Christian love and concern, and know that you have my respect and love. But I believe this is so important for how we approach not just this issue but all issues of discipleship. The Word is authoritative for us, and part of love is telling the truth, even when it hurts…
Kevin
Matt’
I think the issue of who get’s the prophetic voice is huge … and I also think that we are in the Western context, distinctly N American context where this issue is infused with cultural import … so we engage it because the issue, and these communities have such prominence here in our context.
To Isaac,
I’d like to just hint at where I feel led to go in response to your statement: “I support them because from what I have witnessed they are loving, life-affirming relationships and I cannot imagine God having a problem with any loving, life-affirming relationship, and I in no way want to be a part of any institution that denies love.”
Putting aside several ways historical ethics has responded to this ethic … like you know … this criteria is subjective … it’s short term … etc etc … 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.”
To me the Christian way of following Jesus is the different … it is denial, indeed the death of self, in order to receive one’s-self in Christ and His vision for the world. “Deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow me” is the way into the flourishing of God in the world (and His Mission).
I often hear this ethic paired with “as long as the people are consenting adults” or “as long as they/ we are not hurting any one” this flourishing should be blessed. To me this ethic does not approach the Christian vision of the reconciliation of the whole world in Christ … It’s another sign of the American individualist ethic …. So … for me .. to be a follower of Christ … it’s just not enough that it doesn’t hurt somebody(how would I know?) … Ultimate flourishing as I have owned it comes through participating in the new creation .. the making everything of all things new in Christ…
To me … this is what the ethic of the Kingdom is … denying one-self … to pick up the cross … which leads to a birthing into all things new .. a renewal of all creation … crenewing God;’s creation is salvation ..out of which I particular kind of self flourishing is bred … (not necessarily always immediately helpfuyl to what I though was my own self esteem or self flourishing) …
Incarnational Missional community is the working out of all these things
.. well we’ll see how this all fleshed out in the next few posts … Thanks for dialoguing along …