I’ve been building an argument here on this blog for a posture I call “welcoming and mutually transforming” (WMT) towards GLBTQ peoples among us. I suggest that this is the incarnational posture of mission as we engage any culture, but especially as we seek to embody the sexual redemption made possible in the person and work of Christ in the world. I said last post that such a community would be based on three commitments that reflect this embodied (incarnational) posture in the world.
1.) We All Come Broken
2.) We Make No Pre-Set Public Statements
3.) We Embody Spiritual Disciplines that Nurture the Life in Christ for God’s Mission in the World.
This post I want to explore the Second commitment: We Make No Pre-Set Public Statements on What We are For or Against in Sexual Relations.
Here, I am asserting that as a community inhabiting a locale, we do not make any public statements concerning what we believe concerning sexual issues to people outside the community. Sexual redemption is witnessed to others through the telling of stories, humble listening and relationships. In post-Christendom cultures public statements on what we have come to believe concerning GLBTQ and any other sexual issue can only be misunderstood. Positive public statements towards GLBTQ relations (welcoming and affirming) only serve to niche the church (as a GLBTQ church). Negative public statements or public protests against GLBTQ issues only serve to be misunderstood and put the community over against those struggling with these issues. I recommend that a WMT community Make No Pre-Set Public Statements on What We are For or Against in Sexual Relations.
Of course, this is more than a policy recommendation. This is all about the incarnational missional disposition we take in a sexually broken world for the bringing in of the Kingdom. Here are three comments about this disposition
1.) There’s a difference between judging (condemning) someone and discerning alongside someone out of love for that person. To put a sign up, or announce our position against GLBTQ relations, or to somehow protest all GLBTQ issues in front of City Hall, in essence puts us in a judging position towards those we do not even know. This forecloses witness and the possibility for God’s work. I believe evangelicalism’s tendency to publicly judge and condemn on these issues forecloses the possibility for discerning alongside not only GLBTQ peoples, but the many who are struggling with sexual brokenness even inside our church communities.
1 Cor 5:12 makes the distinction between judging those in the community and those outside. Paul says we do not judge those outside the community, those we do not know. Yet Paul calls the church to “judge” those inside the community in the same passage. LET US THEREFORE QUIT JUDGING THOSE OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY. I believe James 4:11,12 tells us not to speak evil or judge a brother inside the community. Here we are told to not take the Law under our own control, and judge our brother from a position as “judge.” The seeming contradiction between Paul and James here is solved when we realize that James’ mode is to encourage the posture of submission and humility to God. James in speaking against the judgment out of a position of superiority. In other words, there is a difference between judgment – whose goal is to condemn – and discernment alongside someone in mutual submission to Christ – whose goal is the restoration and redemption of one another out of love and humility (1 Cor 5:5). It is the latter position that we are called into as Christians. We cannot be in such a position when we have already pronounced condemning judgment. Jesus commands us towards this posture in Matt 7:1-5. The point of “take the log out of your own eye first” is that we approach one another out of the humility of our own sin. “Let the one without sin cast the first stone.” One of the biggest issues for evangelical mission among GLBTQ is the lack of this awareness of the log in our own eye. We come off judgmental. So let me say this – there is a delicate sense in which no judgment can be made against GLBTQ or any other sexual issues, until we have a redemptive sexual community that can humbly invite and listen and ask the GLBT to join us in repentance and renewal of all sexual desire. This is the essence of the position I am arguing for – Welcoming and Mutually Transforming. For these reasons I suggest no public statements about what we are for or against in terms of GLBTQ.
2.) Likewise, Pre-labeling One’s Church as “Welcoming and Affirming of GLBTQ” undercuts missional engagement as well. For we really have no way to know what that might mean? Are we in essence affirming all sexualities, which in essence means we are saying nothing about sexual redemption at all? Are we simply affirming sociologist Jodi OBrien’s recent statement on sexual relations – ”I support the fight for everyone to make choices regarding how they wish to author their own lives (in their sexuality) and the meaning they seek for themselves and those they wish to define as “family.”” If so, is there any possibility for incarnational transformation left in the area of sexuality? If a church community’s first allegiance is to Christ and the calling of one another and the world into following Him and His Kingdom, it is easy to see how these “welcoming and affirming” words – even if one took a pro-gay Christian stance – have no way to be defined. Instead, they serve only to “niche” the church. They in essence market the church and create an attractional dynamic that almost guarantees the loss of the transformational dynamic of the missional community.
Of course the same goes for those who wish to make public statements about “welcoming but not affirming.” Besides the obvious ways this communicates pre-judgment, there is simply no way we can communicate the positive Christian sexual vision, to those outside it. To prove my point, try to explain to someone outside the church why “celibacy” is part of the compelling Christian vision for sexuality. Of course, people inside evangelicalism can’t even get this. One of evangelicalism’s biggest problems is we have no compelling sexual vision which makes sense of celibacy as a fulfilling calling. We have little or no sexual ethic except the glorified desire of Hollywood lopped onto heterosexual monogamous marriage. We have no theology of desire formation. It is “lust,” and enjoy it, only while married to one person. We have no concept of the “ordering of desire.” This is why our witness is so vapid among the sexual brokenness of our day. This is perhaps why we think saying “no” to GLBTQ is enough. Yet it isn’t enough. Saying “heterosexual is God’s norm” says next to nothing in the climes of post-Christendom. It does not define the sexuality Christians are called into.
Since the vision of Christian sexuality cannot be communicated outside the community in words only, since this kind of redeemed sexuality can only be offered with embodied witness, I again strongly suggest that WMT missional communities not make public gestures that pre-label the community sexually amidst the world of sexual brokenness.
3.) We hold our existing commitments humbly as witnesses to redemption not enforcers of a morality.
That we make no public pronouncements, does not deny we carry pre-existing sexual commitments that are creation grounded, redemption filled, and desire reordering. Our community has not been brought into being ex-nihilo. We are part of a story 1000’s of years old. The wisdom in Scripture towards gay relations, pre-marital sex etc. should not be easily discarded because of science or other presumed modernist authorities. There are large parts of wisdom here which have little to do with whether Scripture actually prohibits pre-marital sex, gay sex. Protestants keep looking for Scriptural proof texts while we should be reading the depths and wisdom of the Fathers, the Pope etc… which reveal the profound meanings behind things that the world simply cannot understand (like no contraception, celibacy). It is part of being incarnational to participate in the historical development of Christ’s witness that has been given to us. We do not seek to escape history. I don’t see how we can be missional amidst the sexual brokenness of our day without a recognition that God has been working to redeem creation, and human sexuality in Christ for 2000 years.
Having said this, we must become communities that hold our commitments with a confidence sufficient to listen to those outside our commitments. We must listen and dialogue. We must so trust the Holy Spirit that Jesus is Lord that we can hear the depths of what is going on in the lives of GLBTQ peoples. Part of our problem as evangelicals is that we have been so insecure in our own sexual commitments and sexual lives that we live these commitments defensively.
Is it possible that, even while assuming the prohibition against Gay relations (which I assume), that we will discover some parts of gay sexuality that we can affirm? That there is much we can affirm about same sex friendship, never mind cross-gender friendships. Can we see understand the depths of the reasons why heterosexual relations have become so formed within gay relations, can we understand and affirm some of the qualities of love that GLBTQ peoples have searched for and found within gay relations? Can we listen? Can we search and uncover together. In the process learn about our own brokenness? All of this requires, the holding of our own commitments (those of us who are committed to the traditioned sexual ethic of Christian life) humbly, vulnerably, so as to listen. To me, such an engagement makes possible the Holy Spirit’s work in transforming us together out of submission to Scripture, mutual confession, and healing prayer.
In summary, for all of the reasons above, I am arguing that a Welcoming and Mutually Transforming Missional Community must avoid gestures that would pre-label the community’s stance of sexual relations in the neighborhood.
Is this playing games? talking out of both sides of mouth? Can there be any avoiding of pre-judgment?
My next post on the WMT community is on the Spiritual Disciplines of such a community.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
This is a great thought. I have been looking for such a thoughtful and insightful dialogue regarding GLBTQ issues. I know it will not be easy but these ideas at least open the door for Jesus to shared. Thanks!
Agreed. Nicely written. Still curious to see where this lands and wondering … what happens when the posture/process of MWT gets "stuck" (the G/L fails to see that homosex is part of the broad sweep of sexual disfigurement that characterizes fallen humanity in need of transformation – perhaps you wouldn't even refer to it as being "stuck"). I.e., the GLBTQ person says "I acknowledge that I too am broken and in need of the transformation/ordering of my sexual desires in Christ, but do not agree with you that X behavior actually is out of bounds." What then?
Great stuff David.
I really like your approach to this issue that I think the church has by-and-large been failing in. It seems that our witness amongst our LGBTQ brothers and sisters has, as you've pointed out, been at one end of the spectrum or the other. All are invited to the banquet and all are transformed.
Thanks. Great summary, with solid back up. So often we react to taking a traditional "church" stance we loose perspective on what Christ's position would have been.
I'm sure I will be referencing back to this again!
This is an excellent challenge and some great food for thought. Here are a few thoughts.
1. I don't think this is playing games. But I don't think it is possible to avoid ALL pre-judgement. Isn't having pre-set commitments already a form of "judgement" in a sense? For those of us who hold to a traditional Christian sexual ethic, aren't we by necessity already "judging" because we see LGBTQ relationships in need of healing and transformation? Sure, we can be loving, humble, and patient as we walk with people through the process of redemption, but we already have at least a direction we think these relationships ought to go. Isn't this a kind of pre-judgement?
2. If we take this approach with LGBTQ people (and I think it might be a good approach), it seems we must also take this approach with every type of sexual brokeness. But is this really possible? Don't we pre-judge adultery? The use of pornography? Fornication? Hetrosexual couples living together before marriage?
3. Even if it is not possible to pre-judge (which I'm not sure if it is or isn't), I think it is still possible to employ the Welcoming and Mutually Transforming approach. Jesus welcomed EVERYONE to the table and practiced radical inclusion in order that people would experience his redemptive work. But it seems to me that He had pre-judgements about all our sin.
4. Finally, pre-judgements could be held, but not declared. I think Jesus might be a model for this.
I'm enjoying this alot.
I don't know why, but this comment from Erin wouldn't come through, so here it is. Thanks Erin
Scott,
RE "If we take this approach with LGBTQ people (and I think it might be a good approach), it seems we must also take this approach with every type of sexual brokeness.":
I agree. Why separate out GLBTQ behavior from all the rest? In what way is any other sexual brokeness different? Is not the behavior, regardless of the specific type of expression, all about the same thing? Is not all sexual expression outside the bounds of marriage (and even within some marriages, too) the longing of a broken spirit to quench the thirst for true intimacy? And is this thirst only ever truly met through deep, intimate relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit?
I would say that a WMT attitude is universal for all areas of sexual brokenness (among other personal struggles and sins).
Sincerely,
Erin
Well said, David. The community of the Kingdom which is to be known by love, grace and mercy needs to embrace this challenge.
Scott, "prejudgements could be held but not shared.." I suspect that is the only way to move beyond ethics, which are often lists of propositions that form boundaries.. a bounded set.. which is a way of excluding from the community and often from a way of avoiding the engagement in the first place. I'm not convinced that the discourse of ethics is really helpful in all this — it may avoid the more costly incarnational, "community of practice" and tends to push us toward faith as a moral system instead of an encounter and embodiment.
Interesting, but what happens when you move beyond ethics towards personal holiness? When you talk about "ethics", it becomes abstract and academic. When you talk about "holiness", it tends to become more practical.
Related, the question of bounded/centered and the possibility of a third way.. http://nextreformation.com/?p=4283
Thanks Len,
I think the bounded set, centered set idea helps here to some degree. I think it needs a little more development (which you've done) and I think this issue can help … because there must be a center (or the word I now prefer – "core") which then shapes our lives thru the discernment of a community which inhabits the gifts, Scripture and Eucharist as grounding practices where the Incarnate presence becomes manifest in our lives together … peace bro
Scott,
RE “If we take this approach with LGBTQ people (and I think it might be a good approach), it seems we must also take this approach with every type of sexual brokeness.”:
I agree. Why separate out GLBTQ behavior from all the rest? In what way is any other sexual brokeness different? Is not the behavior, regardless of the specific type of expression, all about the same thing? Is not all sexual expression outside the bounds of marriage (and even within some marriages, too) the longing of a broken spirit to quench the thirst for true intimacy? And is this thirst only ever truly met through deep, intimate relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit?
I would say that a WMT attitude is universal for all areas of sexual brokenness (among other personal struggles and sins).
Sincerely,
Erin
First, let me say that this is a real gift. Our community is already planning to work through this series of posts in our context, so thank you so much! With that in mind, a few questions:
How does this shape our response to sin in general? Is this an appropriate response in all cases? (I suspect that it is). How does the prophetic voice play out in this?
Will you explore at all the nature of "the sexuality Christians are called into"? Or can you point to some good books/resources to that end?
Jamie,
E-mail me and I'll get you my Northern Seminary syllabus for the "Sexual Ethics" class I teach … perhaps I can sort through some notes too … DF
Thanks David. I will email you now. Any thoughts to the other questions I posed?
David,
These are some of the sharpest observations I've seen on the GLBTQ issue from an evangelical perspective. Have you given any thought to the most appropriate ecclesial settings for relationship building in this context? Assuming the congregation presupposes a traditional stance which precludes extending membership or perhaps even communion, where would those on both sides that want to build relationships find the dignified space to do so? I could see this being a small group or service orientated ministry that has a different level of commitment, than say baptised membership. But once that space is secured, I imagine the next question for some would be, "Do we set a time limit before asking for a decision?" Do you think given what you've talked about here that would be an appropriate question to ask up front?
You know, I am really looking forward to a book that is in the works by Debra Hirsch on this topic. Debra's experiences and wisdom will be crucial to this whole discussion and how to incarnate the love required.
[...] David Fitch thinks churches should not make any public statements, for or against, on GLBTQ relationships. Here’s Why Pre-Labeling A Church Community’s Stance on Same-Sex Relations is a Bad Idea. [...]
[...] Pre-Labeling A Church Community’s Stance on Same-Sex Relations is a Bad Idea David Fitch at Reclaiming the Mission in sharing some deep and helpful stuff when it comes to how to approach same-sex relationships in [...]
Interesting opinion, but I think it's a bit oversimplified because it invites a certain type of hypocrisy. Essentially, you must ask yourself what is the purpose of the church? And is it beneficial and right for the church to comment on large scale, moral-political issues? One of the "fun" elements of our era is that there are so many issues which have become hybridized in that involve both a moral stance and a political stance, homosexuality being one. But, is the purpose of the church solely individual, in which case, judgment and condemnation come into play, or is it communal as well, in which societal systems, historical trends and demographic shifts are at work?
For example, here's a practical application of my above questioning: If a church feels that it should not make a public stance on same-sex relationships, should it then also not take a public stance on social justice issues? Both have become hybridized in such a way that they involve the moral and the political, and both run the risk of outward condemnation and misunderstanding. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that there are plenty more Christian communities that would shy away from taking a stance on homosexuality than there are of Christian communities that would knowingly do the same thing for social justice.
I appreciate the thought that's gone into this post, but I think there is still a lot more thinking to be done and that it needs to be broadened in order to understand where this line of logic could lead.
Kris makes a good point, in that issues of personal morality and social ethics and politics are all interwoven. They are more sophisticated than simple (though I suppose we'd all prefer them to be simple). As we used to say in my more radical-politics days, "ALL decisions are political decisions." These days, I'd turn that inside out to be, "All decisions are THEOLOGICAL decisions." Part of the problem is that, these days, rarely do Christians have anywhere near a comprehensive approach on this issue.
And in fact, ALL sides of this social-political-theological conflict could learn something from the “Seamless Garment” movement – a more comprehensive approach to being pro-life that attempts to be more integrated across all social issues of life. (The concept derives from the cloak that Mary made for Jesus, which is noted as being seamless … sort of a “mobius strip of cloth” perhaps?)
For instance, if one is against abortion, doesn’t it make sense to also be against nuclear armament and war and violations of basic human dignity – i.e., anything which demeans, diminishes, or extinguishes the sacred value of humanity? This movement focuses more on an integrating underlying principle of pro-life for practice across the entire domain of social-political-theological issues rather than having a piece-meal approach to issues where some of our stances ultimately contradict others that we hold. It also resists the realities of labeling: Is this approach “conservative” because it is against abortion, or “liberal” because it is against war? Or just plain “radical” because it doesn’t fit in any easy-squeezy political polarity?
Another key problem in this situation is, we live in a culture where there is still a residual either/or requirement imposed on everyone on certain issues – a moral-social-political stance on homosexuality being one of them. This issue is as especially volatile now as pro-choice versus pro-abortion was in the '70s and '80s. And it's easier to spread our rhetoric when we have either/or, black-or-white labels for which side is good and which side is evil. Another maxim from the old radical-politics days: "Whoever controls the language, controls the issue."
However, cajoling people to declare themselves in advance on every facet of gender identity and sexual orientation issues tends to end up abusive. Or, in the words of the famous philosopher … okay, so it was Dana Carvey … "To label me is to ignore me." It is easier (lazier?) for ANY side on an issue to create oversimplified summaries of their opposition and to thwack the piñata caricatures thereof than to deal with the complex realities. And this is no simple issue.
In the bigger picture of our social interactions, I’d suggest that we desperately need to sift through the layers and be ready to give a reason for our beliefs and practices. More than that, we need to consider more carefully the *conventions* of our stance on homosexuality and not just the *content* of our stance. Surely there are some ways we can resonate with our surrounding culture in treating all people with respect, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. However, maybe a significant point can be made by Christians/churches resisting all the social pressure to succumb to the either/or mentality and to declare all stances in advance in order to join a social “dialog.”
Or, to put ourselves in Jeopardy, “Where is the line here between syncretism and succumbing to unhealthy social relationship tactics, and being countercultural by resisting it?”
If we are truly going to be more socio-politically and spiritually radical like Jesus Christ, won’t we come up with responses that are unsatisfying yet provocative to theological and political conservatives, liberals, greens, libertarians, anarchists, progressives, communists, communitarians, socialists, monarchists, etceterists?
Kris,
"A public stance on justice"? what might that mean? doesn't each situation we engage require concrete discernment … I am sure we can all get behind feeding the poor for example … yet how, who, and what that might look like … etc etc .. You conceptualize something like "justice" and everybody can either get behind it or not .. like what that Fox News guy did with Jim Wallace … It was obvious no one knew what each one was talking about in relation to "social justice" … It's the same principle in relation to discerning the highly conceptualzied mutiple sexualities .. It is hard to determine what they might actually mean? … and it means a whole lot more than what one does with ones genitals ..
Peace … DF
DF
Maybe I'm not seeing the delicate points being made but has anyone else seen the blog post over at internetmonk called The Terror of Faith. She makes a great point there about how coming to Jesus requires a certain faith, quoting "Everything we are before we become Christians — all our beliefs, our political stands, our habits, even our sense of right and wrong — is going to have to be sacrificed to God. We can’t keep anything of what we were. It all has to go up in flames. We can’t retain anything to be “Christianity plus” — not Christianity plus social action, or Christianity plus conservative politics, or Christianity plus my opinion about homosexuality or women or wealth." While this proposal may have some areas to be refined, re-thought, etc., I was under the impression that this type of stance was to be the point of beginning, and through the listening and dialogue, through and by the Holy Spirit, discernment would emerge.
David, this is the best stuff about the church's response to GLBT lifestyles that I've seen. I loved last week's post; I really love this week's. Can't wait to read next week's.
Thanks Craig,
Bill, the argument over at Imonk sounds good, similar to my post here (http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/being-missional%E2%80%9D-and-the-glbtq-2-mission-and-the-nature-of-desire/) and here (http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/the-mission-and-glbtq-relations-three-commitments-of-a-%E2%80%9Cwelcoming-and-mutually-transforming%E2%80%9D-missional-community-1/) … I think this disposition is difficult to call anyone into never mind those whose identity is GLBTQ … the question is how to we come modeling that posture so as to invite others to join in
peace
Okay Dave- I've been sitting on this for a few days…
To answer your last question- no, I'm not sure that there can be an avoidance of ANY pre-labeling.
This is functionally the position of our community, so I'm not against anything you've written here- but 7 years in, I can see some of the problems and have some questions
First- how does this kind of community avoid the charge of "bait 'n'switch' ?
And how does one avoid having an entire community of Christians who are under the impression that "our community has no problem with homosexuality"?
And if the answer to that second question is to have a robust "theology of sexuality", how is that not "public"? I'm assuming that we include in developing this theology of sexuality teaching, preaching and other discussions, which are by nature public. In our context, discussions on preaching bleed over thru online forums, facebook, podcasts into the public domain. I know some communities have a firewall around podcasts, but I'm just not sure how we can be an open, welcoming community that doesn't have a serious "members only" area AND have a robust theology of sexuality AND not make public pre-pronouncements on sexuality.
To sum up: How does a community have a robust, biblical theology of sexuality that is kept private, for "members" only and not be seen as two-faced, and to a certain extent disingenuous? How can a community teach Christians God's design for sexuality and yet keep anyone who's not a Christian from hearing what we say?
Okay Dave- I've been sitting on this for a few days…
sorry for the double post- browser glitch
I think Will Smith is awesome…I love all his movies especially the pursuit of happiness. I loved Will’s son Jaden in this movie as well.
Hey Bob!!! I missed your comment here … sorry … I went on vacation … I'm still on vacation. But answering comments like this is a vacation for me (meaning I enjoy this). First, how does one avoid having an entire community of Christians who are under the impression that "our community has no problem with homosexuality"? I am trying to make the distinction here between external declarations (which cannot be understood only misunderstood) and internal declarations … I see it important within the community, where there is space and a lived redemptive culture, to articulate sexual commitments … I see it as a problem to make statements on one's views on gay relations public … for this is the attractional dynamic all over again. And I see it as putting off witness as well as congregating a bunch of people who have one agenda built on some issues in our pasts … I see no reason to predict a bate and switch mentality … for no promises or appeals have been made based on sexuality EXCEPT … and this is an important except, we all come laying our desires on the altar to be transformed into the shape of Christ for His mission.
Of course, a positive statement on sexuality, even where we stand on GLBT relations, within a redemptive hermeneutic of a community, – a robust theology – but it only makes sense within such a community. There is a Wittegensteinian, McIntyrian sense here … that to communicate this redemption takes an incarbnational habtation of it in the world …
peace bro ..
David Fitch
[...] my last post on this subject, I said “One of evangelicalism’s biggest problems is we have no compelling [...]
I think that the biggest problem is that I suspect your distinction between "internal" and "public" is illusory in practice. Even if it is possible, is such "privacy" in a church actually a good thing in general (beyond pragmatic reasons of not scaring people off). That feels a bit squishy to me.