Archive for category: Case Study Conversations

In this age of chaos, anger, and thoughtless reaction I take great heart that there are people like Julia and Jeff who continue to cultivate Christ-like leadership within the Church and within the many institutions that represent Christ to the rest of the world.

Since my last post I am pleased to share that the Annual Conference Assembly of the Mennonite Church has chosen to remain within Mennonite Church USA. The vote to remain within MC USA was much stronger than expected, with 70% voting to remain.

Ohio Conference itself remains very conservative and maintains a very strong stance against performing same sex marriages, with immediate suspension of credentials if pastors were to perform same sex ceremonies. It remains to be seen after the dust settles, following this turbulent point in our history, if there is room for a change within our conference. 

However, the posture of intolerance towards anyone who could possibly disagree with a traditional interpretation of scripture seemed to have been humbled at this last meeting.

Our denomination, in the Spirit of Anabaptism continues to try to toe the line of being a congregationally based denomination in which the community is entrusted with its own interpretation of scripture.

The question remains, however, if the variance of interpretations warrant a review of whether we should consider ourselves a denomination centered on a common Confession of Faith, which in the past has functioned as for many as the lens by which to read scripture, while for others it is a human document unable to reflect the variety of views within our denomination.

LEARNINGS FROM THIS CONVERSATION

I think what stands out for me in this conversation is the importance of taking the time to process decisions well.

I appreciate the example Eastern & SPC have given us in allowing a process to take shape and grow without the need to control the outcome.

One thing I regret about Zion’s initial process was that it was set up against a time barrier and that it was conducted within the height of conflict.

I think by allowing the process to take on a life of its own, both Eastern and SPC allowed the spontaneity of the Spirit to move the process in a helpful and holistic way.

I think the encouragement from Julia to remember the voices of the LGBTQ communities within our congregational discernment are important for us as we move forward. I think initially, because of the heightened emotion surrounding the conversations, we as a leadership were trying to “control” the opportunities for people to say hurtful things to others.

I also value the in depth way that SPC allowed their process to grow into a longer forum in which family-like relationships were formed. This could not have happened had the church felt like they were in a hurry to move immediately.

KEY INSIGHTS: OPEN ENDED ENGAGEMENT WITHIN A COMMITTED COMMUNITY

What I have learned the most from these two institutions is the value of an open ended process which involves all along the spectrum of opinions and experiences, as well as a full engagement with scripture and tradition.

The central role scripture played in the discernment period for SPC is a great example for me in the way our congregation can take “next steps” in discerning and engaging the conversation.

I wonder however, what such a process of engagement with scripture and community would look like if one were to do it with the entire congregation, rather than simply a small group of people. Would it be possible to cultivate the trust and value of “the other” as SPC was able to do with the small group of people who met.

I think when Zion is finally at a place, emotionally, where we can engage the next steps of discernment, it would take into account the intense scripture study demonstrated by SPC, and diversity of opinion as demonstrated by Eastern.

In the meantime, I think we as a congregation, conference and denomination (if not the global Church) need to seriously evaluate how we understand being disciples of Jesus Christ, and to what extent we hold ourselves accountable to each other and to the rest of the Church.

In order for the Church Universal to engage in discerning scripture in terms of Christian faithfulness and human sexuality, we also need to recognize the degree to which we fail at being faithful in every other aspect of our lives.

CONCLUSION

It strikes me in the heart of this conversation across the global church that we as followers of Jesus Christ so often do not act like him. Perhaps we as leaders of the church can use these turbulent times to cultivate disciples of Jesus Christ who value others as Christ would value them.

In Debra Hirsch’s 2015 IVP Book Redeeming Sex: Naked Conversations on Sexuality and Spirituality she says in the introduction, “…It is never my intention to overwhelm you or even to necessarily convince you of the rightness of my theological opinion. This book is about the posture one takes, not the positions one holds… (p.17)”

While Hirsch is talking about sexuality, she is also talking about spirituality. I think as disciples of Jesus Christ, we need to remember that our posture communicates so much more to the watching world than does the values we espouse or the strong opinions we hold.

It does not matter at all to my unchurched neighbor the rightness or the wrongness of my ethical or moral views, but rather the love I am willing to show whoever I deem to be the foremost sinner.

I think the Church Universal has an opportunity to show the rest of the world that followers of Jesus are different in the way we engage conflict and disagreement with fellow believers, let alone with the rest of the world. We need to be able to show people a different way of being broken in this world, because ultimately we are all broken people. Can we together do it well, with the amazing grace, and the surpassing love of Jesus Christ our Lord?

Thank you to Jeff, Julia, and Harold Heie for engaging this important work.

PROLOGUE TO CONFLICT FATIGUE

I write in the midst of national denominational conflict. I just returned from three days of emotionally intense denominational process from Mennonite Church USA’s Constituency Leadership Council, as a representative for Ohio Conference.

The Constituency Leadership Council has become the “Elders” or the “deacons” of the denomination. It is within this body that the denomination receives the feedback in terms of direction for our denomination.

Presently we continue to be divided in our responses toward the LGBTQ community. However, I continue to find hope and signs of God’s kingdom coming in the midst of this group. I have never before experienced such respectful and open dialogue amongst people who do not agree.

It is within the context of worship and prayer that our denomination continues to move along amidst brokenness. At the same time, tomorrow begins two days of our Annual Conference Assembly for Ohio Conference which is expected to be an intense time of conversation around tables pertaining to the future affiliation of Ohio Conference with Mennonite Church USA.

This conflict ultimately pertains to our denomination’s lack of a “stance” toward the LGBTQ community.

The denomination strongly desires to maintain relationship and community dialogue, however there are many within our denomination who do not value such a posture. There is a strong voice within Ohio Conference in particular that says that we should take a strong traditional stance against the acceptance of LGBTQ relationships.

It is from within this context that I am seriously struggling with fatigue in general, and the fatigue having to argue one way or another.

RESPECTING THE CONTEXT

I have to be honest, I am having a very difficult time speaking critically into a context and process in which I am not fully engaged. Perhaps that is one reason I have been asked to be a model of respectful conversation.

I think we live in a “bumper sticker” mentality kind of world, where we can too easily question authority or give our advice without the context of relationship, history or without the risk of accountability.

I believe that critique must always belong in the context of community and relationship.

Because of that I highly value the role relationships and community played in both processes held by Eastern University and Sammamish. I think what I highly respect from both processes was the ability to bring both sides together to do intentional and longer processed work.

Again, the beauty of both of your processes was in your ability to bring people from across the spectrum together to dialogue in order to better understand one another, which it sounds like the community became more important than the “stance.”

I find the fullest and most beautiful example within both processes was the ability for people from both “sides” of the spectrum of responses being able to maintain and grow relationship regardless of opinion and that in the end the health of the community was the highest good. And by that I mean that if one member of the body is hurting, the whole body is hurting.

I believe it is this way of being community that is a sign of God’s new covenant in Christ. If we, the Church, are to be the sign of the new covenant, God’s new people pointing toward the Kingdom of God, we have to be able to exemplify a new way of behaving. We have to be so intriguing to the watching world that they want to ask questions and hopefully be inspired to join along.

LIVING INTO INCARNATION

I think the most difficult aspect of these conversation is in that we cannot respect the context of others.

I will never fully understand our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, because I am not a part of their community. I will never fully understand my Eastern or Sammamish brothers or sisters for the same reason, but I can recognize that Christ’s gospel is incarnational and should always fully represent within its context.

I think the fullest of what we are called to do as a community of Christ is to pour ourselves out on the behalf of others, to regard ourselves and our positions as less than our own. If each person could live in such a manner we would be able to exemplify an alternative to the polarized world we live in. This is the mission we are called to.

Leading Questions: How has Eastern University engaged LGBT issues? How were LGBT students involved in your conversations and what were the results of their involvement? What lessons have you learned as to ways for Christians to talk respectfully to one another about their disagreements? What worked well? What didn’t work at all?

     As we turn our attention this month to case studies, our questions center around community engagement with conversation regarding LGBT issues, and lessons learned on how to talk respectfully to one another when it comes to deep disagreements. Those same questions, and the bigger issue: can Christians find a way to dialogue about significant controversial issues, motivated me to participate in and reflect on the dialogue at Eastern University. I’ll start this essay with a description of Eastern and the spark that started the dialogue. Then, I’ll dive right into the questions at hand. One note as I begin. I am richly blessed with wonderful colleagues. While this case study is an informed description of the process at Eastern, it represents my observations and opinions.

     In June of 2014, the President of Eastern University, Robert Duffett, signed a petition (along with about 150 other key leaders of faith-based organizations) asking President Obama for exemption to the proposed executive order concerning federal contractors and the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. Specifically, the religious leaders wanted explicit language providing for religious freedom, which would allow faith-based organizations to use their understanding of their doctrine as the basis for their policies and treatment of those identifying as homosexual.

     Perhaps unanticipated, many in the Eastern community reacted strongly to President Duffett’s support of the petition. While some agreed with Duffett, others felt that his support stood in contrast to the University’s mission of “faith, reason, and justice.” Around 1,000 Eastern community members signed a petition asking President Duffett to rescind his support of the letter to President Obama. Some of the opposition is expressed in the following comments:

I am an LGBT alumna of Eastern. When I was at Eastern, I knew several students who were LGBT and I can name a hundred ways in which knowing them enriched my experience. I did not come out while at Eastern and I was unsure at the time of what I believed about Christianity and homosexuality, but there can be no mistake that going to Eastern saved me. What I mean is this: at some point, if I had not received the rich Christian education, steeped in the classics of the faith, that Eastern provided, I would have reached a point where I had to choose between faith and the church on one hand and the realization that who I was fell outside of traditionally-accepted norms for Christians on the other. The education I received enabled me to see that Christianity is no simple thing and God has used all kinds, warts and all. It gave me the foundation I needed to continue to wrestle with my faith, rather than abandoning it.

Another Eastern community member wrote the following.

I call upon Dr. Duffet not only to rescind his name on the letter to President Obama, but that he use this incident (and the reaction to it) as an opportunity to open up an important dialogue in the Eastern University on the rights and experiences of LGBT individuals on Christian campuses such as our own. We should not use the separation of church and state as the grounds for discriminating against an entire segment of the population and do close off dialogue.

Comments from the community, letters and calls directly to the President, all reflect the difficult and potentially divisive nature of the topic. By the end of the summer, President Duffett was ready to address faculty, staff, and administration in his state-of-the-university of address.

     In his address, he faced the crisis head on. He explained that his motivation had been to protect religious freedom but admitted that the impact caused many in the community pain. He apologized for causing the pain, and explained that he was setting up a task force to engage the community on human sexuality.  In setting up the task force, Duffett tried to balance the membership with equal representation from conservative and progressive faculty, administration, and students.

How were LGBT students involved in your conversations and what were the results of their involvement?

     The President charged the Human Sexuality Task Force (HSTF) to complete a three-step process.

1) planning a dialogue process/conversation on human sexuality, 2) implementing the process/conversation, and 3) drawing implications about what EU should be and become as a Christian university based on the process/conversation.

In the first stage, a call was sent to the entire Eastern community, asking for groups (academic departments, groups, and so forth) to propose speakers for the spring, with the HSTF providing financial support to bring invited speakers to campus. In all, about 20 different departments and student groups proposed events.

     Perhaps the most meaningful for LGBT students was an event sponsored by Refuge, a student-led group supporting those who are LGBT. The event focused on, “Stories of Courage and Healing: Experiences of LGBTQ Eastern Alumni.” The keynote alum who spoke said that he was impressed with the lineup of speakers. But he also noted that he only saw one other LGBT person as an invited speaker – and that person presented a celibate lifestyle approach.

     During the question/answer time, one current student asked the speaker, “I have a friend who is gay. What do I tell him when he struggles with depression and suicidal thoughts?” I happened to know this current student (he had self-identified to me as gay, but not to his peers). I knew that through the tears of his question, he was asking the question for himself, not for “a friend.” The personal stories from alumni, and their patient and gentle answers to questions provided an opportunity for healing for students in the LGBT community.

     From the first event, we learned that students perceive “feedback” differently than faculty. A well-known evangelical speaker presented the traditional perspective of marriage, adding that homosexuality was a moral distortion, not unlike the propensity for pedophilia. During the question/answer session, the conversation was lively. Some faculty were questioning the speaker’s interpretation of scripture, asking about the acceptance of divorce, and so forth. From a faculty perspective, the event was an academic event and deserved truth-seeking critique. In survey responses after the event, the students were astonished at the “bad behavior” of faculty. They felt that faculty did not show kindness/respect toward the speaker. They felt that faculty usurped all the question/answer time, without an opportunity for students to participate.

     Based on that feedback, we adjusted the question/answer sessions. In all subsequent events, we asked for students to participate first (at least three students first), before a faculty member could chime in. This provided some balance to the power difference of student vs faculty.

     I don’t think we could have been as successful at engaging LGBT students if it had not been for Refuge. Their tireless involvement opened a better channel of communication with LGBT students, and with the HSTF.

What lessons have you learned as to ways for Christians to talk respectfully to one another about their disagreements?

     At Eastern, there is a strong emphasis on our missional tagline, “faith, reason, and justice.” According to the most recent Self-Report study, 76% of students, 93% of employees, and 100% of trustees report familiarity with the mission. “More strikingly, 665 of students have reported that Eastern’s missional tagline of “faith, reason, and justice” directly or indirectly affects their day-to-day lives” (MSACS Self-Report, 2012). Thus, the majority of the Eastern University community report that the missional tagline affects day-to-day life at Eastern.

     At the same time, Eastern is a diverse community of Christian denominations, from Quakers to Catholics, Baptists to Presbyterians, Episcopalians to Non-denominationals, all employed full-time. The diversity of faith traditions (within Christendom) is considered a strength in some ways, and a weakness in others. According to the previous president, the diversity makes it hard to find donors. Perceived as too conservative for the progressive donors, and too progressive for the conservative donors, Eastern has had to find a way to maintain a balance of ideologies.

     Learning to talk about differences in a community of diversity should be simple, right? It was anything but simple. Perhaps if the topic was less culturally relevant, it would have been easier. But in this case, fear seemed to be a common thread.

     Those who are more conservative in their perspective expressed fear. They were afraid to appear on the wrong side of human rights, and felt that the more progressive voices would  shame them. Those who were more progressive also expressed fear. They worried that expressing a progressive opinion in an evangelical organization could cost them their jobs. Students said they were afraid to speak out of fear that if their opinions were different than their professors’, their grades would suffer.

     It did not seem to matter if a person was conservative, progressive, student, faculty – all expressed fear that their perspective would cost them in some way. Of course, those who are LGBT were the most afraid to participate since the current policies at Eastern are not inclusive. The current policy is that one may identify as LGBT, but they cannot be in a romantic relationship and cannot be married. In one survey, an LGBT faculty/staff member said the following:

The worst part? For ten years, this has been an unsafe place for me to be who I am. People’s commitment to conservative doctrine often comes at the expense of people. So my perpetual fear of repercussions should I be truly myself has alienated me from people who would find me disposable should they know who I am.

How does one have a conversation when fear is a common thread? How do we engage in a conversation that is so deeply personal and divisive?

     Perhaps one of the most valuable lessons of this process is the need to build relationships. Two of the most outspoken members of our community (one progressive, one conservative), and both of whom served on the HSTF, have modeled a relationship of friendship and engagement. At a bi-annual faculty workshop, the HSTF showed a videotaped segment of the two, modelling listening, and allowing each to arrive at his or her own conclusion. While they deeply disagree with each other, they listen well and build on a relationship of trust.

What worked well? What didn’t work at all?

     In reviewing the past almost-two years of meetings, events, conversations, survey data, there are some highlights to this process. For the purposes of this essay, I will limit my focus to three, the leadership of the HSTF, the variety of events, and providing extra credit for students to attend. For the parts that did not work, I’ll also focus on three, the lack of inclusion of LGBT faculty/staff, the timing of the events, and the timing of the dialogue.

     First, the highlights of the process. Without a doubt, one of the chief reasons the dialogue process was such a success was due to the leadership of the HSTF. Faculty were selected to serve on this task force because they represented diversity of opinion, and because they were held in high regard in the community. Two students (one representing a conservative opinion, the other a progressive) also served as equal members of the Task Force. Faculty and Administration members of the Task Force specifically asked for their input at every turn.    

     The leadership provided by the HSTF to the community was greatly influenced by one of the co-chairs, a retired faculty member, well-respected by all. Her emphasis on an inclusive process and modeling it during every meeting (typical meetings lasted more than 2 hours) set the tone for the HSTF, and the community. Trickle down leadership at its best.

     Another highlight of the process was both the number and variety of events offered in just two semesters. With about three months to host events during a semester (not scheduling events during the first few and last few weeks of each semester), about 10 events were held each semester. Again, the events were sponsored and moderated by a wide variety of departments and groups. For a group to say that their opinion was not included, actually meant that they did not propose a speaker or panel during either semester. A critical motivator of the HSTF was to provide variety from the community. No one wanted it to appear that “one side” was favored over another.

     Finally, some faculty offered incentives for their students to attend events. Truthfully, I was not a proponent of offering extra credit to get students to participate. I just wanted them to come because they wanted to be involved. But like the company that offers a drawing at a company picnic, the incentives worked. We saw record student attendance at almost every event. At the forum for student discernment, one student said,

I was homeschooled my whole life. I lived in a bubble. Last semester, one of my friends dragged me to one of the events for extra credit. It changed my whole outlook. I learned so much and my perspective was changed.

Providing incentives for students to engage in the discussion was valuable. Becoming better informed, about all perspectives, fits with the mission of Christian higher education.

     Moving from the highlights, it is worth mentioning some aspects that were not as successful. What lessons did we learn from our process?

     First, because of current policies at Eastern, no faculty, staff, or administrators on the HSTF were LGBT. In one of the discernment forums, a number of students raised issues of justice. If the process is to dialogue about human sexuality, the absence of the LGBT voice cannot go unnoticed. As a result of the feedback, the HSTF surveyed current and former employees about their experiences at Eastern. While the stories gathered matter, they do not begin to substitute for actual representation and inclusion.

     Another lesson learned was the timing of events. While a few events were held during normal work hours, most were held at night. Unfortunately, that meant that many faculty were unable to participate. And when they did, it was often picking events that already represented their perspective. Holding the events at night worked best for students, for the speakers, and for reserving precious large room space. Trying to schedule the events during the day would mean competing for space, competing against other classes, and/or competing against athletic events; thus, this was not a solution either. We taped every event and uploaded the videos to the HSTF website. Not an ideal solution, but it was an effort to allow all community members to hear the speakers.

     Finally, the last lesson. At various points, each group felt that their perspective did not matter. It seemed that some believed that it was useless to share their opinions. For some, they feared that no minds would be changed. Was “changing minds” the point of the dialogue? If the rhetoric of the process turned into war rhetoric, with one side winning, the other side losing. If the process turned into counting the number of “soldiers” on each team, then the point of the dialogue was lost. Entering into conversation, with genuine care, has the possibility to change an individual. The dialogue was not about “winning souls,” it was about defining who we are as a community.

     This month, the HSTF turns its attention from the third-stage, drawing implications about what Eastern University should be and become as a Christian university based on the process/conversation, to planning the closing panel to inform the community of key ideas and perspectives that will ultimately constitute the report to the president. I look forward to adding updates later in the month that show how we completed our process.

Let me start by saying it is an honor to be included in this Circle, and I look forward to both sharing the story of the church I lead, Sammamish Presbyterian Church (SPC), as well as being in discussion with Julie and Jessica. I can’t wait to hear their stories and learn from them as well.

The charge given for this part of the conversation is to provide a case study regarding how the topic of homosexuality has worked its way through the local church or institution we lead. My plan in this post is to first provide a little context of the church I pastor, explain where we landed as a congregation in relation to the decisions regarding same-sex ordination and marriage, and share a few things we learned along the way.

Context

SPC is a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA) nestled in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains, a growing suburb of Seattle. The church itself has been in existence for close to 30 years and is filled with both founding members and newcomers (including many young families) across the faith experience spectrum. It’s ethos and roots are squarely evangelical, with Jesus Christ (hopefully) at the center of everything we say and do, and with a high value on the study of Scripture and the proclamation of the Gospel through word and deed. Sammamish is located in the shadow of both Microsoft and Amazon, and both the city and our church are filled with some of the brightest, fastest moving, decisive people I’ve ever met. It is a creative, inquisitive, and fun place to do ministry.

As a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA), however, we ran into a challenge a few years ago as the polity of the church changed. In 2011, the General Assembly of the PC(USA) opened up the option for governing bodies to ordain non-celibate homosexual persons to the role of Pastor, Elder and Deacon (the 3 ordained offices in our church). Fast forward a few years—in 2014, the General Assembly voted to make it possible for pastors and governing bodies in states where gay marriage was legal to perform and host gay weddings within their churches. While these decisions were open-ended–pastors, churches and governing bodies could choose to adopt these standards or not–it suddenly made a decades-long discussion in the national church a very local and immediate one—What are we, SPC, going to choose to do?

For some churches, this conversation was a slam dunk. As a pastor, I saw colleagues in my Presbytery and around the nation make speedy and somewhat easy decisions regarding these matters, as they led congregations that were mostly unanimous in their understanding and belief regarding these issues. Congregations came out as either “for” or “against”, many with very gracious postures towards the other perspective; others, not so much.

What I didn’t see, however, was what I hoped for—a position somewhere in the middle. Because while I myself landed on the more traditional side of this conversation, I had both colleagues as well as parishioners who I considered faithful to Jesus Christ, lovers and students of the Scriptures, Christian friends I would trust with my life and considered my family; and yet, saw things differently than me. As the pastor of this particular flock, I wanted us to be faithful to Jesus Christ and faithful to God’s Word, of course. But part of that faithfulness had to be being faithful to each other in the midst of it. And in a world filled with quick divorces and unfaithful relationships, I couldn’t believe that schism and splitting up from each other or even our denomination (which as a pastor I made ordination vows to and as a church we were birthed into life and supported by to this very day) was a good witness to a fractured world.

So what do we do? How do we make the biggest decision our church family would make in a generation (which in my opinion, it is) and be both faithful to God and faithful to each other?

Well, here is what we did.

The Decision

In early 2012, I asked the Session of SPC (what we call our Elder Board) to appoint a Denominational Study Group, to enter a season of study and conversation on the topic of homosexuality and the church, in the hopes of both keeping the Session abreast of the changing landscape of the PC(USA) and if necessary, make recommendations as to what we should do. This Study Group of 7 people (myself included) was put together by me (the Senior Pastor) and was made up of seasoned, faithful members, both women and men, of various ages and stages in life.

There were 3 criteria for being in this group, 1) They had to have done their own Scriptural study of this issue and could faithfully articulate their viewpoints. The group was purposely diverse—made up of 3 members I knew fell on the traditional side and 3 members on the more progressive side of this discussion (with me mostly in the middle); 2)They had to be pro-SPC. In other words, I wanted people in this group that weren’t just interested in the debate of theological ideas, but were interested in the health of this church family as well. They needed to have a vested interest in this body of believers and want the best for it; 3)They could play well with others. I wanted people I knew were team players, who, while they had strong convictions, had a proven track record of listening and caring for others, even in the midst of disagreement. With that in mind, the Session approved this ragtag bunch, and we started meeting in July of 2012. I thought (we all thought) we would meet for about year.

We were wrong.

For almost 3 years, this group met at least once a month, eating dinner together, getting to know each other, praying for each other, reading Scripture together, digesting articles, books, and YouTube talks from all sides of the issue together. And while we most certainly became the resident experts on the subject of homosexuality and the church, what we realized through this process was that what we REALLY became was not just experts, but family. In fact, family became an important metaphor for our group (which next to the “body of Christ” is the second most used metaphor in the Scriptures regarding the church–we aren’t called “brothers and sisters” for nothing!). And while our study and conversation was eye opening, what we came to see most of all was a new set of family values–that just as we would never think of throwing someone out of our nuclear family for a difference of opinion, we would never turn away from each other as a church family as well, just because we saw things differently on these issues. And so we met and fell more and more in love with each other as we studied and prayed on this difficult issue.

For the record, not one person in the study group had a change of conviction on homosexuality and the church. But together we did have a change of heart—we went from trying to win each other around an issue of faith and practice, to being committed to each other and loving each other like the family God believes that we are. With that in mind, we worked hard on a process to bring our congregation on board with what these family values looked like.

How did we do it?

We started by drafting a statement of Core Beliefs that were ultimately approved by the Session. These Core Beliefs began with 15 “WE BELIEVE” statements that we could agree upon and hold fast to as followers of Jesus Christ and members of the same church family.  It was a powerful reminder to us of how much we hold in common. These were then followed up by 4 “SOME OF US BELIEVE” Statements, articulating the differences we share regarding homosexuality, ordination and marriage. Compared to what we had in common, these differences seemed paltry and unimportant. At the end we included a final set of “WE BELIEVE” Statements that I will share with you here…

BUT TOGETHER WE BELIEVE in a God who is bigger than our differences and is not threatened by this conversation. WE BELIEVE in a God who knits us together as a CHRIST-CENTERED MISSION MINDED FAMILY. WE BELIEVE God has a story to tell through us in this season, through the way we love each other, the way we pursue truth mixed with grace together, and the way we bear witness to Jesus Christ.

Through all of this, as our study group educated our congregation on the various Christian perspectives regarding homosexuality, as we had open dialogues (we called them “Family Meetings”) where people could express their thoughts and convictions, as we non-anxiously modelled healthy dialogue and conversation, we saw people catch the vision that whatever the decision was to be made by the Session and the Pastors, what holds us together is bigger and more important than what tears us apart. While the issue of homosexuality and the church is an important one, it need not be a defining one; a discipleship issue at it’s core, not a salvation one.

The long and the short of it is that in April of 2015, our Session voted by an 11-6 margin to allow the possibility of both same-sex marriage within our church walls as well as a married gay person to be eligible for ordained ministry at SPC. They also passed a unanimous vote of approval for our pastors to follow their own consciences in considering whether or not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. None of our elder board felt the need to step down after these decisions, but in fact were convicted by the unity of Spirit we felt in our common life and mission together.

In a letter to our congregation, after laying out the process and decision, I said this…

Finally, if you disagree with these decisions, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for you at SPC. I know that for a fact, because there is a place for me.

 I’d love to tell you my story. As your pastor, I have spent more time these past 3 years studying this issue than anything else. I have prayed, scoured the Scriptures, talked to those who see things from a different perspective (as well as talking with those who don’t!), read books, thought long and hard, and prayed again. Fortunately for me, SPC is filled with faithful people who worship together, serve together, and act like a family—and yet hold different Scriptural perspectives on this issue. Because of that, SPC has been a wonderful seedbed for my own spiritual growth and discovery. I have grown immensely in my faith from having this conversation with you, and I have God and you to thank for that.

 For myself, I have decided (at this point) that I still cannot in good conscience perform same-sex marriages. While I can see the Fruit of the Spirit that is often born out of these relationships, and understand (and even agree) with many of the Scriptural understandings that can lead to blessing these relationships (I have outlined these in detail in our all-church family conversations), I am still not at a place where I can personally perform these marriages in an official manner. This has to do with my own ongoing wrestling with the different levels of Scriptural teaching and the relative newness of this discussion in my own life and in the church universal. Because of these factors and until I have resolved it for myself, I cannot in good conscience preside. Maybe someday, but not now.

 However, that is not true among all of my colleagues. While Pastor Kay holds a perspective similar to my own, Pastor Austin is in a place where he can officially bless and perform these marriages, out of his own attempt to faithfully read Scripture.

 I support his ability to preside at same-sex marriages, and support SPC’s ability to host them. Why? Because in the end, I believe that as followers of Jesus Christ, we can disagree on a good many things and still be the body of Christ and the family of faith, and that goes for this issue as well. I take Paul’s counsel in Romans 14 to heart…

 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

 In this discussion of personal piety and freedom, Paul gives us a great rule, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity” (to quote St. Augustine). And while some will say that these issues at hand regarding homosexuality are essential to faith and life, as I have prayed, discussed, read Scripture and pondered, I don’t think this is an essential, core belief that must be adhered to for faith in the life of the church, and our Session through their vote has agreed.

 Consequently, I am comfortable being the Senior Pastor of a church that allows same sex marriage ceremonies to occur even if I personally will not perform them. How can I do that? Because at SPC, I believe we agree on the central tenets of the Gospel, and can disagree on the non-essentials, and this is a non-essential in my book.

Since the day we made that decision, of course we have seen some families leave (around 10% is our best guess estimate), which is to be expected with any big decision. But what has been so encouraging to me is that even those who have gone have made it a point to express their thanks for SPC and for the process itself, and didn’t burn the house down when they left. 🙂 Since then, others have come to join our church, too, specifically because of the way they saw we handled and processed this conversation as a church. Some SPC’ers have privately expressed their gratitude to me regarding the outcome, but have kindly not celebrated too loudly, being sensitive to their brothers and sisters who are struggling. Other SPC’ers have told me that while they may not agree with the decision, the process and the commitment to the family as a whole was far more important to them and they felt there is still a place for them to stand at SPC. I have never been more proud of our church—Family values at its very best.

 Lessons

 A few quick ”lessons learned” to close this entry…

1. Engaging in LGBT issues as a church requires a long, slow road. Don’t rush it! While some in the family are wanting to fling open the doors, there are others who are afraid of what that will look like. It takes time, conversation, patience, love, more patience, and time (did I say that already? 🙂 ).
2. When engaging in LGBT issues as a church, it is imperative to find common ground. How easy is it to let things divide us when, in reality, there is so much that unites us! We should take the lessons from Ecumenism 101 and apply them to this issue in the local church. What do we stand on together? What is our rock?
3. When engaging in LGBT issues in the church, you must trust your conversation partners. To have these conversations requires vulnerability and trust. Neither of those things happen overnight, but if I can get to the place where I know the other loves me, hears me, disagrees with me, and loves me anyway, I am a lot closer to being a family that listens to the Spirit and works together for resolution.
4. When engaging in LGBT issues in the church, humility is a must. In my opinion, we all need to just admit that we are at least 10% heretical. One day when we stand before a loving God, I’m convinced that none of us will have it all right—we will certainly learn a few things we got wrong! Because of that, we need to hold our interpretations somewhat loosely, be willing to listen, learn and respect the insights of others.
5. When engaging in LGBT issues in the church, we must see “Agreeing to disagree agreeably” as an expression of living out the Gospel and as a witness to the world. We live in a world that unfortunately sees the church as fractured and unable to get along. What a witness we present when we can give ground to each other and work things out rather than rush to divorce court!
6. Finally when engaging in LGBT issues in the church, pastors need to lead by example. Too often (and I felt this pressure, too), pastors are expected to make their theological convictions the expectation for the entire church. “Strong leadership” is equated to a puffed-up chest and a “not on my watch” sort of posture. Instead, it seems to me that the pastor’s job is to shepherd their flock to listen together to God’s Spirit through God’s Word and his people, to encourage the community to lean in towards each other in love and trust, rather than fear. This posture starts with the pastor, and we are called to model that spirit of generosity, grace, and enthusiasm with joy.