Archive for category: Churches and the LGBT …

The Way Forward in the Church

Thanks so much Tim and Chris for engaging in Respectful Conversation. I look forward to your third posts as we consider what needs ongoing attention in our churches engaging LGBT members. Clearly there is much that we agree on and some disagreement, which is not surprising for a matter as controversial as sexual minorities in the church.

In this third contribution to our conversation, I want to identify what I consider to be the heart of the conflict and a way forward for the church. These matters are the heart of my ongoing effort to envision a pastoral way forward. I may not address all of your questions and comments explicitly but I hope that what I offer here implicitly speaks to your concerns.

I begin with what I consider to be central concerns in the conflict between “exclusion” and “inclusion” of members who are LGBTQ in the church. Then I will identify some resources that model The Way Forward and will help the church live into deeper understanding about sexuality, which is not only central to Christian identity but also ton what it means to be human. I believe these are essential for the future church that will no longer be dependent on heteronormative interpretations and determined by heteronormative power over sexual minorities. My hope is for a church living beyond “engaging with LGBT members” into full mutuality that welcomes, embraces, and honors all people on the same basis as valued and essential members of the body of Christ. The Apostle Paul’s beautiful body language of being one body with many members is dependent on difference honoring difference not dominating or dismembering difference (1 Corinthians 12:12ff.)

The heart of the Matter

In my experience the conflict over “homosexuality” circulates through three “issues” that dominate the divide and define the controversy:
1. Biblical tradition – scripture prohibits “homosexuality” as sin;
2. Church tradition — the church upholds the Bible’s prohibition of “homosexuality;”
3. Marriage tradition – the Bible and the Church uphold only a male-female marriage union.

The dominant tradition argument is that the Bible condemns “homosexuality” as sin in a few texts with no positive references, so the matter is settled in scripture. It is also unparalleled with other conflicted matters in the church, where great change has grown out of great controversy (e.g., slavery, divorce and remarriage, women in leadership) where numerous texts overwhelmingly portray one stance while a few texts hint of a different possibility.

The church has also faced changes over “homosexuality” in recent years, yet the divide remains. Changes have come over decisions and discipline, sexual identity and diversity, church policy and pastoral responsibility concerning LGBTQ members. But the traditional contention has not changed – “homosexuality” is not part of God’s created order and is, prohibited by the Bible and the Church. I use “homosexuality” here meaning the constellation of all that is projected onto sexual minorities.

Tim, this is why I say that select texts will not help us find a way forward. I am not saying disregard these texts but I am saying that traditional interpretations of these texts are not the only interpretations and not the only or even the best texts to help us find The Way forward. After 40 years I do not expect the substantial disagreement over those texts to be reconciled.  

The heart of my theology and pastoral experience and the heart of the congregations I have served, do not share this traditional approach to scripture or view of “homosexuality.” Our proclamation is that all members of the body of Christ have a full and equal place in the church with full and equal responsibility to live with integrity, fidelity, and faithfulness to God in Christ with each other in all relationships including marriage. This means honoring how God has created each of us in God’s own image. God’s ways are bigger and more mysterious than can be defined or confined by a finite understanding of being solely female or solely male as the sole embodied relationship of sacramental covenant love of marriage.

I find it incomprehensible to consider “homosexuality” to not be rooted in the biological creation of a human being. We are born into a vastly complex mystery of sexuality that we are living into and contending with all our lives. Some of us discover our sexual identity to be in a vast mystery we identify as LGBTQI. While that may be a minority sexual identity it is no less valued or valuable in God’s eyes or our eyes or the church’s eyes. There is no lesser or restricted status before God in Christ or in the Church.

Given a creation-based biological-sexual determination that all humans are born with, I find it equally incomprehensible for a sexual majority to must impose control that prevents a sister or brother who is a sexual minority from fully living their identity and calling, including the covenant love of sacramental marriage. God created us in God’s image as wholly-holy spiritual-sexual beings and created us to be in relationship. Yes, that has many manifestations, of which marriage is a primary human relationship. That truth and reality, not who is having sex with whom, is the heart of the matter.  

All that is to grapple with matters of sexuality. But sexuality is not the only “issue” at issue.  

Another dimension of what is at “issue” is who has the power to prohibit LGBTQ members, marriage, and ministry and how this power is wielded.   

Forgive me for reminding us, but from the beginning of this current conflict almost a half century ago, “homosexuality” was controversial precisely because our experiences, interpretations, world views, identities, personalities, and authority structures in the church were hugely different and highly conflicted on this very matter.

Yet it was not “homosexuality” alone that birthed differences and manifested conflict. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation of why “homosexuality” is our greatest church defining and dividing “issue” for the past half century.

I believe our reasons for it being church defining and dividing are rooted in “issues” deeper than “homosexuality.” What I have long known and often said as a pastor, is that for most matters we fight over in the church, “the issue is not the issue.” What is identified as the “issue” is often a manifestation of and triggered by much deeper matters we deny or don’t want to face.

I see two deeper “issues” that drive this conflict and divide us. First, the church has a tragic history with sexuality – being embodied sexual humans created in God’s image. Our fears and fantasies about being sexual bodies are projected onto “homosexuality” rather than faced forthrightly. Projection always blinds us and keeps us from healthy honest sexual self-examen (both in terms of serious study and in terms of the Jesuit spiritual exercise; also both in terms of our personal embodiment and our communal embodiment). Our persistent denial or refusal to face these profound sexual matters in ourselves and in human relationship in the church tends to be projected onto “others” who are not “us.” Our projection is manifested as control over the “other” to keep them away so we aren’t reminded of something we need to face in ourselves. If we are afraid of our own sexuality, we are even more afraid of same-sex sexuality. In other words, we have both an obsession with sexuality and aversion to sexuality that subverts the centrality of sexuality in human life and relationship. Furthermore, our obsession and aversion manifested as denial and projection are a significant contributing factor to sexual abuse and sexual infidelity in the church, particularly where there are power differentials. These matters desperately need the church’s fullest attention. Our obsessive focus on “homosexuality” has not and will not help us find The Way Forward.   

This segues into the second deeper issue we face in the church over sexuality, which is power. At one level, a central “issue” in this controversy is over authority – authority of scripture, authority of church leaders, authority of the church, and our own personal authority. All of those embody multiple levels of meaning worthy of unpacking. That too is more than this conversation can bear. More to the point here, underneath these struggles with authority is the deeper “issue” of power. Who decides and how are decisions enacted and enforced? Equally important is who doesn’t have power and who is the recipient of what is enacted and enforced?

The power for “exclusion” and the power for “inclusion” are opposing forces, to be sure. But they are not parallel approaches or access to power; they do not have parallel strategic or substantive purposes. 

From the beginning a decade ago, our Inclusive Mennonite Pastors effort has been invitational and formational rather than dominating and disciplinary. We don’t demand that everyone agree and act with us. We don’t threaten to take our congregations and leave the denomination if those who exclude LGBTQ members remain in the denomination. We don’t have and wouldn’t use power to discipline and dismember congregations or pastors who are “exclusive.”  We believe we can be and must be the Church together even with these differences.

Chris, in your first post, you spoke of your own denomination, The Episcopal Church, wielding power in ways, I understand to be troubling for you. As I followed TEC’s process when Gene Robinson was elected as a bishop, two questions arose for me: What makes it permissible to be an ordained priest, as a married gay man and impermissible to be a bishop?  Is not the deeper “issue” how power is used to make that happen or prevent it from happening?

I understand your discomfort with this TEC action and your tension over it. You described this as having, “set off a conflict that has resulted in many…leaving TEC, and has brought the global Anglican Communion to the brink of schism.” There are multiple levels of “issues” running through that TEC controversy and certainly power is wielded in multiple ways. Do not these matters and methods call for deep reflection to understand them?

Chris, as a committed compassionate pastor, you wisely “listened to angry, frustrated, and confused straight people….running the gamut” of views over this conflict in TEC. You also share why you left TEC and your concern and commitment to “historic and global Christianity” in order to align yourself with Christians in the Global South and other Christian streams. Again I understand this and support you in it because I trust your faithful discernment and pastoral commitment to Christ and the church.

In my involvement with the Mennonite Church and Mennonite World Conference, I too have listened to “angry, frustrated, and confused straight people.” I have also listened deeply to voices of LGBTQ sisters and brothers and families across this country and in the Global South. A Mennonite gay man in Latin America contacted me to share his story and struggle when he heard that I was being disciplined by the Mennonite Church. He longed for a pastoral connection he could not find in his country. Many LGBTQ family members who contact me are from traditional Midwest rural Mennonite communities where they also find little care from their pastor or congregations. While there are differences in how various racial and religious groups across the country and around the world feel about “homosexuality,” there are vulnerable sexual minorities in every culture, country, race, and religion crying to be heard and held as fully human rather than hated and harmed. 

In another tangential yet connected comment: Fear drives our political culture today and fear drives much of our ecclesial culture today. In this country our church and political culture are deeply intertwined. But that too is far more than I can address here.  

The Heart of The Way Forward in Three Bodies

Three “bodies” merit renewed attention: the body of scripture, the human body, and the body of Christ. I believe that it is essential to attend to all three “bodies” in fresh ways and offer the following resources as deserving particular attention for this purpose.

Sandra M. Schneiders’ life and vocation integrates New Testament scholarship and Christian spirituality. Her book, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture (Liturgical Press, 1999) demonstrates that scripture does far more than contain divine revelation, it participates in divine revelation. Thus sacred scripture interpreted and integrated in the life of the church is transformational. Sacramental imagination informs our communal encounter with and interpretation of the biblical text that is the Living Word of God. Schneiders applies her hermeneutical model to Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well (John 4) that is embodied transformation integrating the body of scripture, the human body, and the body of Christ.

Luke Timothy Johnson acknowledges Schneider’s revelatory approach and builds on it with his new book, The Revelatory Body: Theology as Inductive Art (Eerdmans, 2015). He reveals his purpose in the “Introduction: Toward an Inductive Theology:”

Two simple convictions animate this exercise in theology. The first is that the human body is the preeminent arena for God’s revelation in the world, the medium through which God’s Holy Spirit is most clearly expressed. God’s self-disclosure in the world is thus continuous and constant. The second conviction is that the task of theology is the discernment of God’s self-disclosure in the world through the medium of the body. Therefore, theology is necessarily an inductive art rather than a deductive science. An even simpler premise underlies these convictions: authentic faith is more than a matter of right belief; it is the response of human beings in trust and obedience to the one whom Scripture designates as the Living God….of whom Scripture speaks both creates the world at every moment and challenges the ways in which human freedom tends toward distortion of creation – and indeed the Creator. Among the idols that authentic faith must resist are the idols of human thought concerning God.

I find The Revelatory Text and The Revelatory Body to be particularly relevant for the Church to find The Way Forward. I am confident this approach transforms biblical interpretation, transforms God’s people, and transforms the Church. That three-fold embodied transformation may even transform God’s world.  

Christian ethicist Margaret A. Farley’s Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics (Continuum, 2006), recognizes “There is nothing new about questioning the meaning of human sexuality or the criteria for its incorporation into a moral view of human life…..Yet the questioning that goes on today is decidedly different from most of what has preceded it in the history of Western culture” (1). She explores historical and cultural views of sexuality before focusing on “Sexuality and It’s Meaning” including “How the Body Matters” through “Theories of the Body” and “Transcendental Embodiment.” Getting to the heart of her work, Farley is then prepared to address “Just Love and Just Sex” to pose a “Framework for Sexual Ethics.” Farley climaxes her work with “Patterns of Relationship” as a “Context for Just Love” applied to “Marriage and Family, Same-Sex Relationships, [and] Divorce and Remarriage.”

Farley speaks of being “embodied persons” and “inspirited bodies” and unpacks two arenas of embodiment through which most concerns about the human body swirl: “the relation between soul (or mind or spirit) and body” and “social constructionism; that is whether and how the meaning of the body is culturally and socially formed, influenced, constructed” (111).

Farley concludes:

In the end, I have attempted to contextualize and illuminate our understanding of sexuality and its possibilities for human fulfillment. Looking to the past and present, to cultures far and near, I have tried to sort the multiple meanings and goals of sexuality, sex, gender, and embodiment. Above all, I have asked and tried to respond to the question of when sexuality and its expressions are appropriate in human relationships. I have promised a sexual ethic grounded in and specified by concerns for justice. Justice, I have tried to show, is not a cold notion apart from love; it is what guides, protects, nourishes, and forms love, and what makes love just and true. It concerns our loves and our actions; it concerns the sort of persons we want to be. I repeat what I have said before: it is not an easy task to introduce considerations of justice into every sexual relation and the evaluation of every sexual activity. But if sexuality is to be creative and not destructive, then there is no substitute discerning ever more carefully whether our expressions of it are just (311).

The Way Forward? Christian Voices on Homosexuality and the Church (Timothy Bradshaw, editor; Second Edition: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003) is an Anglican Church effort to address this conflict in the 1990s. This volume shares thirteen diverse Anglican voices acknowledging that “homosexuality is an ecclesial-political as well as theological matter” (vii) in an effort to consider how “we conduct ourselves so as to live out the creative intention of God for the common good of humanity” (xiv) with a “desire to seek common ground on which proper theological discussion might take place in an appropriate spirit of Christian courtesy” (xiii).

I am impressed with the rigor and diversity of the theological conversation made available in this book and can imagine with gratitude the dialogue that took place in this symposium.  

For more than a decade I have envisioned a Mennonite Church face-to-face respectful conversation and have urged Mennonite Church leaders to host it. I envision a series of seminars addressing every biblical, theological, ecclesial, pastoral, psychological, relational, spiritual, and sexual dimension we can imagine from this controversy. From that ongoing wholistic integrated effort we might see each other and the matter with new eyes of love and trust. Needless to say it has never happened. What has happened is that the Mennonite Church has become mired in a predictable impasse that we falsely blame on “homosexuality” with “exclusive” churches leaving when they can no longer discipline or dismember “inclusive” churches. Beloved sisters and brothers in Christ that is not being faithful to God and is not The Way Forward in Christ. It isn’t the only answer and it may be too late, but I still fervently believe that it would be a refreshing and revealing conversation that might let God surprise us into a new unity in diversity as a Mennonite Church.  

With deep gratitude to you Chris and Tim, I conclude this third post, knowing our respectful conversation is a work-in-progress deserving more than I have offered.  

I let a cherished spiritual guide have the last word emanating from the First Word:  

God’s love is an endless sea of mercy and unconditional acceptance.
The deeper you go, the more you fall into the Mystery.
As you fall into the Mystery of an ever-loving God,
you are able to accept the mystery of yourself.
And as you accept the mystery of yourself,
you fall into the Mystery of God.
People who love God love themselves and everybody else.
People who love themselves and everybody else love God.
You see, love is one. Love is whole.
Love is an endless sea that you fall into. 
And once you fall into it, you can’t fall out.
It’s not something you do.
It’s something that is done to you, and all you can do is let go.

Richard Rohr, OFM, Center for Action and Contemplation Morning Meditation, 2/20/16

 

I so much appreciated both Tim’s and Weldon’s second posts. They modeled the kind of respectful conversation that I suspect is the hope for this respectful conversation.

Our final posts are supposed to identify issues that the three of us need to give more thought to as a basis for ongoing conversation. Before I do that, however, I’d like, briefly, to answer a couple of the questions that Tim and Weldon posed to me in their second posts. 

First, Tim asked about the early Christians’ decision to put aside the Sabbath for Gentile converts, suggesting that, since the Sabbath, which is so central to the creation narrative, was set aside in the New Covenant, the male-female sexual union might also be set aside. My response is that Jesus, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul, and the author of the Letter to the Hebrews each speak about the Sabbath, namely how the coming of Jesus changes how God’s people understand and experience the Sabbath. Jesus violated the Sabbath prohibitions of gleaning and healing, demonstrating that in God’s kingdom pursuing shalom is always acceptable. In Acts 15, the apostles set aside Sabbath regulations, which had become ethno-cultural identity markers, for Gentile converts. In Romans 14, Paul specifically mentions those who “esteem one day better than another” as worthy of welcome and honor, all the while insisting that the one for whom “all days are alike” are worthy of equal welcome (Romans 14:5-6). The Letter to the Hebrews recasts the Sabbath in eschatological terms, writing that, “a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God” (Hebrew 4:9). Again, while the Sabbath and food laws were set aside for Gentile converts (and Jewish believers who felt so led), sexual morality was, if anything, made more challenging for both Jew and Gentile in the New Covenant. Thus I see no ground in setting aside the historic Christian understanding of marriage and sexuality, as it is rooted in the creation narrative, was strengthened by Jesus himself, and then affirmed by Paul.

Second, to Tim’s question about my relationship to Christians in Global South, I should be clear that I’ve been quite open about my strong opposition to the “anti-gay” laws that have been in the news recently in many countries in Africa. I’ve also spent time with some of these brothers and sisters, seeking to understand their perspective, all the while sharing my concerns. It’s interesting that Tim raised the issue of polygamy. Among our brothers and sisters in Africa, there seems to be a consensus that, when a man in multiple marriages comes to faith in Christ, it would be a greater wrong to insist that he simply choose one wife, thus exposing the others to deep shame and vulnerability, than to remain in an arrangement that is less than God’s intention but does honor and protects his wives. So, the man is allowed to maintain the marriages, yet, he is prohibited from serving in church leadership. I wonder if, ironically, this pastoral solution might be roughly applicable to a man or woman in a same-sex marriage who may come to faith in Christ, especially a couple who are raising children. 

Weldon asked about scholars who have influenced me, to whom I turn when wrestling through a challenging exegetical issue. I referenced both NT Wright and Richard Hays in my last post. They are two scholars that I often turn to on interpretive issues. Also, I appreciated Mennonite biblical scholar Willard Swartley’s book on this topic. After doing the exegesis of the texts directly related to same-sex intimacy, he demonstrates that the church’s “evolution” on pacifism, slavery, and woman in leadership are consistent with the New Testament, especially taking into consideration the “redemptive arc” of God’s kingdom, while that same arc simply wouldn’t work for same-sex relationships.

Weldon also asked about how our church teaches about issues of sexuality. Again, being a hierarchical church, our national denomination is clear that we uphold the historic Christian understanding of marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman. So, I’m not permitted to perform same-sex marriages. Importantly, if a couple comes to me for marriage preparation, and one (or both) partner has been divorced, my bishop must grant permission, taking into account the circumstances of the prior marriage(s). Permission is not always forthcoming. 

In my preaching I roughly follow the Revised Common Lectionary, so, when assigned texts deal with issues of marriage and sexuality, I’ll preach on it. For example, last October the assigned gospel reading was Mark 10:2-12. It’s true that there are a lot more texts on compassion, mercy, forgiveness, grace, and justice, so my people generally hear more about these topics than on topics specifically relating to sexuality. I’ll often mention LGBT people as groups who tend to be marginalized and beaten down, thus especially close to God’s heart.

Also, in our new members’ class, we walk through the Book of Common Prayer, which, of course, includes the liturgy for Holy Matrimony that I mentioned last week. As I teach about marriage, I also try to articulate my “welcoming but not affirming” posture toward LGBT people. When someone joins our church, they know that our intention is to uphold the historic Christian teaching and practice on marriage, all the while welcoming any who might come. Finally, our youth minister occasionally teaches on issues related to sexuality, and he’s been clear with both the youth and their parents that our congregation is a safe place to wrestle through issues of sexual identity.

I realize that the above responses are no doubt inadequate, yet I hope that they offer some insight into my thinking and pastoral practice.

In thinking about issues to which each of us need to give more thought in this continuing conversation, I believe that the primary issue is, as Weldon expressed in his second post, our hermeneutical paradigms. How do we read, interpret, and then apply scripture to our given pastoral contexts? From this crucial question flows several others. For example, what is the role of the historic and global church, versus the local congregation, in discerning the Spirit’s leading in and through scripture? Another question that comes to mind is the criteria for breaking fellowship. How do we balance Jesus’ prayer for unity and Paul’s consistent admonitions to “be of one mind” (see, for example, Romans 15:5, 2 Corinthians 13:11, and Philippians 2:2) with both Paul’s and John’s pastoral practice of expelling brothers and sisters who transgress doctrinal and / or ethical boundaries?

I still believe that the burden of proof is on those who argue for an affirming position, so I think that my affirming brothers and sisters need to do work on a theology of marriage that would include same-sex couples. Since gender complementarity has been so central to understanding the nature of marriage, is same-sex marriage, technically, even possible? If anything, I believe that the Obergefell decision has made this kind of reflection more difficult, as now gender is no longer a factor in legal marriage.

For Tim’s “Third Way” position, it seems that there are many practical issues to work out. As I mentioned in my second post, I don’t think that a non-affirming pastor could be effective at a Third Way congregation, nor a non-affirming youth pastor. I also wonder how many non-affirming parents would feel comfortable if their children began to struggle with sexual identity issues at a Third Way church.

For me, well, to Weldon’s question, I need to stay open to the Spirit’s leading, always open to read, pray, and listen, to whatever, to paraphrase Weldon, God might put in before me. I also need to make sure that my congregation, and, to extent that I have influence, my denomination, never becomes a safe-haven for homophobia.

I hope that the above is a helpful “last word”, which, ideally, is not the last word at all, but rather the last word in a specific conversation, which is a part of a much larger and ongoing conversation to which we are called, continually, to participate.

Tim, I value your voice and example, and I’m grateful that we’ve been able to spend time together in the past. I hope that there might be more time together in the future. Weldon, I resonated with your comment about “relational distance” between us. Thank you for trusting me with your story, and I hope that you’ve found my contributions helpful. I’d love to meet you someday to further our conversation, and, more importantly, deepen our bond in Christ. 

It’s been an honor and a privilege to participate in this conversation. I only hope that it has been helpful to the two of you, and to anyone who may have read the posts. It may become increasingly difficult to be a congregation that welcomes LGBT people yet maintains the historic Christian teaching on marriage, but as I wrestle with scripture and tradition in our unique local context, it is the only place my (hopefully Spirit-formed) conscience will allow me to be. So, today, here I humbly stand.

Flicker cc by Amanda Slater – edited

As I’ve experienced conflict in the community in which I live, I’ve reflected on Stanley Hauerwas’s comment that we need to tell one another the truth—but perhaps even more—we must want to hear truth. I appreciate both of you for speaking truth and I hope I have the will to hear it. We were asked to begin with the ways we agree with one another, so I’ll start with that.

Points of Agreement

Thank you Weldon for retelling your journey at Seattle Mennonite toward becoming welcoming and affirming. My church is currently making its way through the book of Acts, and your telling of God’s work seems like its own set of Holy Spirit inspired “acts.”

This last week we looked at the Jerusalem council’s decision (Acts 15) to set aside the law concerning circumcision for the Gentiles. I think it is telling that when James cites Scripture to back up the decision he says, “‘the words of the prophets agree with this,’ not ‘this agrees with the words of the prophets’” (Gaventa, 218). Seeing God at work, by help of the Sprit, is a key to truthful discernment. Scripture plays a key role in checking what we perceive the Spirit to be doing, but this is not as simple as we are sometimes led to believe.

In Acts 15 James cites a Scriptural passage that is not a simple proof text. It is a remix of Scripture meant to help the community locate itself in the story of God and affirm the work that God is doing. As I noted in my last post, there was good Scriptural support for the idea that Gentiles should be circumcised. The Covenant of Circumcision was an “everlasting” one (Gen 17:1-7) and other passages see Israel blessing the Gentiles as it teaches them the law (Isa 2:3, Mic 4:2)—which would have been understood as requiring circumcision. But James, by using Amos and throwing in snippets of Jeremiah and Isaiah and some words of his own, claims that the prophets foresee the rebuilding of Israel so that “all other peoples may seek the Lord” (Acts 15:17). Interestingly, he uses the Septuagint, rather than the Hebrew version of Amos 9:11-12, because the Hebrew (which suggests that God was rebuilding Israel so that they could grab Gentile territory) would have subverted his point.

Given that this is the way the Bible narrates the faithful use of the Bible, the story you tell of God’s mercy and love being preeminent, and the subsequent personal and congregational discernment of what that looks like in relation to LGBT Christians, is compelling.

I also want to appreciate some of the many truth nuggets you intersperse throughout your essay.

 

•  “Grace, arising from God’s limitless love, is the central theme of the Bible… Mercy is just grace in action.” (Richard Rohr, Daily Meditation – 1/30/16)
• “The truth of faith is made good in the living of it or not at all . . .” (McClendon)
• “I made a covenant with God that I will seek to be present with people in pain without adding to their pain, especially from a place of privilege and power.”
• “True Christians are absurdly happy, wholly committed, and almost always in trouble.”

 

For those of us who try to tweet truth, this essay is a goldmine. There is so much of what you say that I agree with, especially (since something like this was my opening line) that “church members [should] truly engage with sisters and brothers who are LGBTQ” [italics in the original].

Chris, you also echo this sentiment when you say that you “encourage . . .  parishioners to listen to the stories of LGBT people, especially those who have been raised in the church.” There is much more in your essay to which I say a hearty “Amen!” So many conservative Christians minimize or ignore the pain caused to LGBT people by the church. Thank you for your acknowledgement that “Persecution, while considerably lessened . . . still exists . . . it is also brutally, often murderously present in certain societies.”  

As an Anabaptist, I applaud your determination to teach that there is a Christian vision of marriage that is far more robust that than offered by our society.

I’m also concerned about how LGBT affirmation will affect people’s view of Scripture. What needs to change is the way we understand the nature of Scripture.  The whole LGBT question is an opportunity to move beyond a simplistic, modernist view of Scripture in which the Bible is a divine morality hotline. But I know that some people, as they move towards the affirming side, will be tempted to dismiss Scripture out of hand rather than seize the chance to examine how to best interpret Scripture.

In spite of your assertion that “the implications for how the church engages with the LGBT community are profound” and the subsequent reasons you offer for why this topic is important, I wonder if you believe that this question has become more central than it deserves to be. When you write that “When we look the other way in the cases of heterosexual adultery, divorce, and pornography use while condemning same-sex relationships, we come off as the worst kind of hypocrites,” I couldn’t agree more. What do you make of my main point? This is an important topic, but ultimately a non-essential that has become essential in the minds of many Christians.

Points of Concern and Disagreement

I’ll begin with the points of concern I have about Weldon’s essay.

As you note, “Biblical people search the scriptures to ground and guide all we do.” In light of this, it is important that you explain why you bracket the seven texts that seem to speak most directly to same-sex relationships. Why is the “way of Jesus” not found in those texts? I realize that for those of us who have been in this conversation for decades, it may feel like those verses have been adequately addressed time and time again. But if we are to hear our brothers and sisters concern that “we take Scripture seriously,” then you need to provide a rationale (perhaps just a paragraph or so) as to why you think they can be set aside.

My second concern is that the call for justice not obliterate the calling of the church to be (in Scot McKnight’s phrase) a fellowship of differents. Given my own difficult history of growing up in the conservative church, I’m sympathetic with the drive to provide a “safe,” affirming place for LGBT Christians. But I don’t think “safe” means “comfortable.” Safe means something like, “A place where we are all allowed to speak the truth as we see it, and we can all try to hear it, because we know ourselves to be—above all—beloved by God. Safe means a place where truth is spoken and welcomed.”

It is hard to say all that needs to be said at once. I care deeply about justice and passionately wish that the church did better in its advocacy for all kinds of people: immigrants, racial minorities, prisoners, the sick, the poor, and LGBT people. The fact that the church doesn’t do more for the marginalized is symptomatic of a disastrous unfaithfulness that is repugnant to God, guts our witness to the world, and desecrates our own humanity.

But there is also a danger in being “right” about justice issues. Just as conservative Christians can feel self-righteous about their stance on “sexual holiness,” so too, liberal Christians can feel self-righteous about getting the LGBT question “right.” And this religious game—of claiming to know right from wrong and thus feeling superior to others—is its own disastrous dead end. Such self-righteousness is odious to God, divides the church, and distorts our souls.

I say this after experiencing years of conflict in my church. We’ve worked hard at reconciliation and we’ve come to a place of appreciating each other across differences. Although I may disagree with others on many topics, I’ve come to believe that I need their perspective. I’ve come to see the profound wisdom of philosopher David Hume’s observation that “Truth springs from an argument among friends.”

This may feel like a frustrating critique. It sounds like you have hung in with the Mennonite church in spite of what must have been a strong temptation (at times) to leave it behind. Perhaps I’m just asking you to elaborate on your vision for persevering with non-affirming Christians.

Chris, I’d like to engage your argument that, in taking a welcoming but not affirming stance, you are standing in solidarity with the Global South. This argument is sometimes made with the implications that a) while LGBT people have been historically marginalized, the Bible is more clear about God’s preference for the poor and thus siding with the majority world is more Biblical, b) the poor are close to the heart of God and therefore have special insight into this matter, and c) the Global South’s strong opposition to LGBT affirmation reveals that this issue is one of bourgeois affluenza and can therefore be dismissed.

I feel like I could write a book just on this topic, but here are three short responses:

a)     There are confounding cultural factors on both sides, that make this a fraught issue. My Old Testament professor Ellen Davis tells the story of teaching a seminary class in South Sudan. The topic of homosexuality came up and her students expressed their inability to understand permissive Western attitudes toward same-sex relationships. She then asked them, “How many of you think polygamous marriage is acceptable?” About half the hands went up. She responded, “Westerners find that incomprehensible.”

Having lived in Uganda as a kid (and having visited as an adult), I became sympathetic towards some of the arguments for having more than one wife. The cultural context is so different, that in certain situations, it seems like the most humane thing to do. I believe that if those in the Global South understood the way we construct same-sex relationships, and the intense loneliness of people in our fragmented society, that they would be more sympathetic toward same-sex relationships.

b)     LGBT people within traditional cultures are sometimes the most marginalized. When I was working on the AIDS ward at San Francisco General as a nurse, I once had a patient who didn’t speak. He was Latino with a wife who was HIV+ and he had kids. The doctors couldn’t figure why he couldn’t speak, so they called for a neuropsychology consult. The consulting doctors reported that there was nothing physiologically wrong with the man: he was so profoundly depressed that he simply couldn’t talk.

While I don’t know for sure, I suspect he was on the “down low”—having sex with guys—and that he gave the HIV virus to his wife. In a macho culture, he felt himself to be the lowest of the low. If our concern is for the poor, how can it include people like him? It would be easy to say that “he made evil choices.” But, if he already thought himself to be scum (given his culture’s opinion of homosexuals) I can understand his compulsion to seek acceptance and love through sex with guys.

c)     The Global South seems posed to repeat some of the destructive church divisions that have taken place in the West. Although in places like Uganda public opinion is solidly against LGBT affirmation, there is a growing group of LGBT advocates and an increasingly visible population of sexual minorities. Eventually the church, in places like Uganda, will have to face the same questions we’ve faced.  

And so the important question is, “can we find a way to live together in peace on this, or is division inevitable?” If we can find a “third way” then I think we will have done the hard work that might serve our brothers and sisters from the Global South. And if not, then I suspect that like us, they will experience the same damnable rupture of unity and love.   

Chris, the second point that I’ll respond to is your contention that “Changing our understanding of marriage and sexuality, however, touches on core understandings of creation, the fall, redemption, and even the doctrine of God.” To adequately respond would probably require a couple of books. I’ll make a couple, inadequate comments.

While I know you don’t believe the Acts account of Gentile inclusion is analogous to the question of LGBT inclusion, there are some compelling points of similarity. If anything, ever, in the history of theological teaching, was grounded in creation it was Sabbath. Sabbath-keeping is embedded in the ten commandments and Israel’s law. Yet passages like Romans 14 and Galatians 4 seem to put Sabbath-keeping aside in order to include the Gentiles. If such a foundational understanding of creation was put aside to include us, shouldn’t we hesitate a little at insisting that LGBT people need to follow a heterosexual norm because it is grounded in creation?

Just because something doesn’t follow God’s design, it doesn’t automatically mean it is a sin. If someone is born colorblind, we don’t say, “Well, since you can’t do it as God designed, you probably shouldn’t try to see at all.” So too with a same-sex orientation, I think it is possible to say, “Well, it is not God’s ideal, but love sexually as you can, and enter into the beautiful Christian story of faithful covenant keeping.” With this perspective I think we can still affirm “core understandings of creation, the fall, redemption, and even the doctrine of God” without condemning LGBT Christians who chose to commit to someone of the same sex, with a steadfast and costly love.  

Conclusion

Weldon, I appreciated how you bathed your entire narrative in God’s mercy and grace. I’m reminded of gay Christian W.H. Auden’s assertion that “I know nothing, except what everyone knows—if there when Grace dances, I should dance.” It seems to me that you accepted the invitation.   

Chris, I know a little of how difficult this topic has been in the Anglican communion. Given the exhaustion that tends to accompany that experience, I’m pleasantly surprised that you are willing to participate in this conversation. Thank you for the vulnerability in sharing your story, and your willingness in hope that further dialogue might yield goodness. That too seems to me grace-full.

I respect you both already, and this exchange has only served to deepen my appreciation for you. As we enter into lent, may we offer up our little attempts at searching for truth in the hope that God will make them live.

Ash Wednesday, 2016

 

Pastoral Preface

There’s a wideness in God’s mercy (Hymn text: Frederick W. Faber, 1854)
Verse 1:
    There’s a wideness in God’s mercy, like the wideness of the sea.
    There’s a kindness in God’s justice, which is more than liberty.

Grace, arising from God’s limitless love, is the central theme of the Bible…
Mercy is just grace in action. Richard Rohr, Daily Meditation (1/30/16)

It is humbling and an honor to engage in Respectful Conversation with you. Our leading question for this season of the eCircle conversation invites us to share recommendations for how churches engage with LGBTQ members. I begin with some prefatory offerings that lead into my contribution to this conversation.

First, my encouragement is for Church members to truly engage with sisters and brothers who are LGBTQ. At least in the Mennonite Church, the struggle has often been “heterosexuals” talking and deciding about “homosexuals” rather than engaging sisters and brothers who are LGBTQ.  Great pain has been suffered by being othered rather than engaged. To engage the other begins with deep listening, particularly for those with privilege and power. Failure to listen to and engage those we label “homosexual” has also caused the Church great harm and loss of the gifts of members and the wholeness of the body of Christ.

Second, my offering is not so much “recommending” as giving witness. A form of spiritual memoir known as “biography as theology” recognizes that we “do theology” through lives lived in a worshiping community of faithful discernment and prophetic witness. In Biography as Theology: How Life Stories Can Remake Today’s Theology, theologian James Wm. McClendon, Jr., reveals “The truth of faith is made good in the living of it or not at all…. Theology is done not only from a perspective but to and for a community.” This is far more foundational and formative than relying on one’s own “experience” as the determiner of all things or the ultimate reality. One’s “experience” alone does not constitute the Church’s faithful profession or practice. Nevertheless, “experience” is essential for being Church.

Third, while I understand the question set before us, I don’t consider my pastoral approach to be a “position” called “welcoming and affirming.” It is a calling I have lived and grown into over four decades of ministry. I have found that being faithful to our calling is to live a trajectory of continuity and change, forged in its share of confrontation and conflict. Along The Way, God surprises and changes us in ways that lead us a step beyond where we are or want to go. Yet God’s surprises are consistent with the trajectory of our lives and life together. The Way of continuity and change leads us into the wonder of paradox (the impossible that God makes possible) and the beauty of mystery (endlessly knowable yet never fully knowable God). In the Church, all are welcome in paradox and mystery!

Fourth, I am aware that the three “positions” proclaimed by Chris, Tim, and me, do not embrace all “positions” in the Church. Some beloved sisters and brothers in the Church wouldn’t readily engage this Respectful Conversation much less engage with LGBTQ members.

With that in heart and mind, I offer my journey of faith and leadership in the Church to you worthy companions in Respectful Conversation. I trust this reveals The Way for churches to engage and embrace LGBTQ members.

Come and See Jesus

Verse 2:
There is welcome for the sinner, and more graces for the good.
There is mercy with the Savior, there is healing in his blood.

John…watched Jesus walk by [and] exclaimed, “Look, here is the Lamb of God!” Two disciples heard…and followed Jesus…[who asked them], “What are you looking for?” They [asked him], “Teacher, where are you staying?” Jesus said to them, “Come and see!” (John 1: 35-39, NRSV)

“Jesus’ resurrection is not a one-time anomaly, but the regular and universal structure of reality revealed in one person,” Richard Rohr, Daily Med. 1/18/16

Seeing Jesus as the Risen Christ in Emmaus is a gospel paradigm. Two disheartened disciples, haunted with despair over Jesus’ crucifixion, walk away from Jerusalem and encounter a stranger on the road. The stranger reveals the gospel to them but they fail to see Jesus. Yet they offer hospitality to the stranger, who offers hospitality to them in blessed and broken bread. “Then their eyes were opened” to see the Risen Christ (Luke 24:31). Jesus opens the eyes of our heart to see the other in himself and himself in the other, especially the ostracized other. 

I have been blessed to see Jesus in many surprising people and places:
* In a Muslim doctor in Iraq on March 29, 2003, who saved our lives and refused payment when I and other Christian Peacemaker Team members were injured even though our nation was invading theirs with “shock and awe” bombing. [The Gospel of Rutba: War, Peace, and the Good Samaritan Story in Iraq by Greg Barrett (Orbis Books, 2012) and my story, “Neighbors in Iraq” in The Mennonite (May 2010, pages 20-22. https://themennonite.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/05-01-2010-Cookies-for-Nicholas.pdf)]
* In a homeless friend, who waited to eat at our community meals until all our homeless friends had food, saying, “I am fed by seeing others eat.”
* In young church members who attend Christian colleges and choose a path of service, peace, and ministry rather than attend more prestigious schools in order to get the best jobs and make the most money.
* In sisters and brothers who are LGBTQ being passionate and compassionate disciples of Jesus, committed to a Church that ostracizes them, serving faithfully in congregational leadership roles within a denomination that rejects them for their sexual identity.

Pastoral Call and Commitment in Congregational Context

Verse 3:
But we make God’s love too narrow by false limits of our own,
and we magnify its strictness with a zeal God will not own.

“Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” Richard Rohr, OFM (and Jaroslav Pelikan). 

When I was called to be pastor of Seattle Mennonite Church over two decades ago, I shared with the congregation my pastoral commitment to refrain from making “homosexuality” be the defining, consuming, or dividing issue of the Church. I also shared my sense that this congregation would not exist without being in some way inclusive of LGBTQ members. We will listen to what God sets before us and trust God to lead us faithfully as a church. Along the way we will search the scriptures and explore how to be faithful spiritual-sexual beings by being spiritually discerning and communally compassionate. We will remain committed to our beloved Mennonite Church, knowing that the majority of Mennonites will continue to reject The Way we are being led.  

Along The Way I faced one of my deepest pastoral discernments. Two women in a committed relationship in the congregation, came to me as their pastor expressing their desire to be married. I told them that what they are seeking is both possible and impossible. It is possible just like all other couples entering a covenant of marriage. It is impossible in light of an official, albeit highly controversial and conflicted, opposition to “gay marriage” in the Mennonite Church and prohibition against pastors officiating same-sex marriages. I assured them that we would walk this impossible journey together knowing that “nothing will be impossible with God” (Luke 1:37).

This became the most intense and extensive discernment of my pastoral life. My discerning community included many congregational, conference, and denominational leaders as well as my spiritual director and other spiritual companions. With each one, I welcomed their honest response, reminding them that I was not asking for their agreement or approval. I held full responsibility and accountability for my pastoral action.     

I continued pre-marriage preparation with the two women by prayerfully listening to each other and to the Spirit, knowing there were complicated and conflicted implications far beyond their marriage at stake. It was both similar to and different from any “heterosexual” couple’s preparation for marriage. The wedding of the two women was celebrated in a friend’s backyard and was not a Church sanctioned wedding. Nor did we have a congregational process to decide if they could be married. Congregational discernment and blessing for marriage may have merit — if it applies to all marriages in the Church.

As expected, I entered into a disciplinary process with Mennonite Conference leaders responsible for ministerial credentials and pastoral practice. My ministerial credentials were “suspended” for a time before being restored with the plea to “not do it again.” I reiterated my commitment to mutual accountability within the Mennonite Church and reaffirmed that if I could promise to “not do it again” I wouldn’t have performed this pastoral act. I also reminded leaders that if we couldn’t in good faith and conscience diverge from Church rules and tradition we wouldn’t exist. Our Anabaptist Mennonite stream of the Reformation was a heretical violation of Church rules and tradition yet was birthed in the sacrificial struggle for personal, pastoral, and communal faithfulness.

My commitment is to Christ and the Body of Christ in the context of the congregation and the Mennonite Church. It is a commitment I am not willing to violate even when it is deemed to violate a Church tradition.  

My pastoral act unexpectedly inspired Mennonite publisher-writer-pastor Michael King to edit a DreamSeeker Magazine issue (Winter 2006) with differing voices on “homosexuality.” He enlarged the conversation to include 32 Mennonite voices into a book: Stumbling Toward a Genuine Conversation on Homosexuality (Cascadia Publishing, 2007; http://www.cascadiapublishinghouse.com/stg/stgcont.htm). My “Stumbling” story is: “To Guide Our Feet: Pastoral Action in Impossible Times.” http://www.cascadiapublishinghouse.com/dsm/winter06/nislwe.htm.  

Pastoral Presence in the Mennonite Church

Verse 4:
For the love of God is broader than the measures of the mind,
and the heart of the Eternal is most wonderfully kind.

God “punishes” us by loving us more! Only a personal experience of [God’s] unconditional, unearned, and infinite love and forgiveness can move you from the normal worldview of scarcity to the divine world of infinite abundance. Richard Rohr, Daily Meditation (1/30/16)

Early in ministry one of my closest pastoral friends “came out” to me as gay. Over the years we spent long hours in conversation about being married, being a pastor, and being gay in the Mennonite Church when it wasn’t safe to “come out” in the Church. Through our friendship and with others in the Church, I learned much about sexuality, including “homosexuality.” I listened to and walked with many people in pain – pain often inflicted by sisters and brothers in the Church. I made a covenant with God that I will seek to be present with people in pain without adding to their pain, especially from a place of privilege and power.

In the 1970s sexuality emerged in the consciousness and conversation of Mennonites in North America. This emergence erupted as a conflict over “homosexuality” as it became evident that some members of the church are “gay.” Consultations were held on human sexuality but the conversation was mostly about “homosexuality” being against God’s created order and sin.

In the 1980s a Mennonite task force prepared an excellent resource for the Church on Human Sexuality in the Christian Life (Faith and Life Press, 1985;  https://mennoharmony.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/human-sexuality-in-the-christian-life-1985.pdf). It addressed “homosexuality” within the context of sexuality and the Church with intent to foster more healthy and honest exploration of sexuality and compassionate conversation in the Church.

In 2007, some Mennonite pastors met on a prayer retreat to discern a pastoral way forward in the Church. We listened to what God set before us — which became an “Open Letter to Mennonite Church USA” proclaiming:
Our vocation as ministers is to proclaim and embody the Good News of Jesus Christ, which is the Gospel of radical hospitality and extravagant love (Luke 15, John 4). We are all sinners in need of God’s grace. We believe that we cannot deny that grace to anyone seeking to be part of the Body of Christ. We are each called to faithfulness to Christ, accountability in the Church, and integrity in human relationships. We believe that all people are invited to faithful fellowship in this Body, blessing for our deepest relationships of love and care, a spiritual home for ourselves and our children, and the opportunity to fully express the gifts for ministry that God has given us. (http://openlettertomcusa.blogspot.com/2009/04/open-letter-to-mennonite-church-usa.html). This letter claimed pastoral space in the Mennonite Church that inspired many and continues to grow beyond our imagination or doing.

Congregational Discernment for “Welcoming and Affirming”

Verse 5:
If our love were but more simple we should rest upon God’s word,
and our lives would be illumined by the presence of the Lord.

“We are not human beings trying to become spiritual; we are already spiritual beings trying to become human.” Richard Rohr (and Teilhard de Chardin) 

The call to be a “Welcoming and Affirming” Church came from congregational members. We entered a season of discernment and listening to our own hearts and to our communal heart. Members were invited to write what was on their heart and what they hear God setting before us. Our heart-stories were compiled into a booklet for all members to read prayerfully and listen deeply. Our long intense, sometimes conflicted and painful discernment led us to being a “Welcoming and Affirming” Church, with a “Welcome Statement” including: (http://www.seattlemennonite.org/about/welcome-statement/):
As disciples of Jesus….In our journey together as a community of believers, we have named several areas of giftedness and calling…charisms are gifts that God has given us for the ministries that God has set before us:
      Welcome and Hospitality: We desire that all who enter here may be received as Christ. We celebrate and affirm the image of God in persons of every age, gender, race, ability, ethnicity, and sexual
      orientation….We publicly affirm that LGBT persons are welcome to participate in the full life and ministry of our church, including membership, baptism, marriage, leadership, and pastoral ministry.

God of Mercy Church of Mercy 

Therefore, since it is by God’s mercy that we are engaged in this ministry, we do not loose heart….We commend ourselves to the consciences of everyone in the sight of God….For we do not proclaim ourselves, we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake… 2 Cor. 4:1-5. 

Mercy is the heart of God. It must also be the heart of [God’s] children. Pope Francis

I leave you with seven calls for mercy that have grounded my life and guided my ministry and will help churches embody mercy to engage with LGBTQ members and become places of healing and hope. 

Scripture – The Way of Jesus is not found in seven texts that presumably speak to and settle the “homosexuality” division in the Church. Biblical people search the scriptures to ground and guide us in all that we are and do. Jesus didn’t answer every question or make it easy for disciples but gave us all we need for a living faith and faithful living. The work is ours to do in our time and place. Peter’s vision was transformed to see that God’s impartiality and Christ’s peace welcomes all into God’s reign. “What God has called clean you must not call profane.” No story in the Acts of the Apostles is told and retold in such detail (10 & 11) emphasizing its import for Peter’s community and ours.  

Sexuality and spirituality — The Church’s obsession with “homosexuality” has subverted faithful exploration of the fullness and beauty of what it means to be wholly/holy spiritual-sexual beings created in God’s image. Sexuality is not the antithesis of but deeply interwoven with spirituality. Sexual identity is complex and diverse with nuanced identities across a spectrum. We are created by God and are children of God – which takes us into the deep intersection and integration of our spiritual-sexual being.

Marriage is more complex and problematic in the Bible and the Church than we acknowledge. Polygamy, patriarchy, and property have a troubling marriage history. Passionate mutual love is a more recent phenomenon of marriage. 

Divorce and remarriage also has a conflicted history in the Church. The Mennonite Church has found a way to hold members who are divorced with compassion while upholding our confessional commitment to life-long marriage. I have accompanied many couples who have made a marriage covenant with God and each other. About half of these marriage partners had been previously married. Yet we have found a faithful way to uphold life-long marriage while caring for divorced members and blessing remarriages in the Church. This path of exceptional healing and healing exception, is manifested in remarriages that are healthy and happy. They also become faithful members and leaders in the Church.

Pastoral Way Forward – The conflict over “homosexuality” has been led by Church leaders (institution) and LGBTQ activists and allies (marginalized). A pastoral way forward faithfully leads the local Church, while being committed to the larger Church.

Models and Mentors for Ministry – When I was in seminary a Mennonite anthropologist theologian from an evangelical seminary presented a “bounded set” and “centered set” model. A “bounded set” entity emphasizes boundaries and rules (violations bring discipline or dismissal). A “centered set” entity emphasizes direction (centering) and discernment (context) in a dynamic way. I and most members grew up in a “bounded set” Church they couldn’t live with and have found new life and faith in a “centered set” Church. Mentors have been formative spiritual guides for me who help me be grounded in obedience not rebellion.  

Resistance and the Gospel – Years ago, a guest preacher challenged me in his sermon, “Are they throwing rocks at your house yet? If they aren’t throwing rocks at your house you aren’t proclaiming the gospel!” Resistance to The Way and Word of Jesus is not just reaction of Jesus’ first hearers but of hearers today. Nevertheless, living the gospel embodies faithful resistance to injustice and sin.

Personal Afterword

I close with a biblical word and a word of wisdom I strive to live by:
      True Christians are absurdly happy, wholly committed,
            and almost always in trouble.

When I retired from pastoral ministry, my beloved Church gave me a beautiful quilted wall hanging with a Word from the prophet Micah:
    What does God require of you but to do justice,
          and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God. (6:8)

AMEN!

 

How do you recommend that churches engage with LGBT individuals and why? 

Les Chuchoteuses – cc 2.0 by Serge Melki – editedRather than treat LGBT Christians as a sexuality to be affirmed or disciplined, churches should walk with LGBT people with curiosity. Churches should ask the same question of an LGBT member it asks of all its members: how is God at work in this person’s life and how can we cooperate with that?

Churches should model the difficult practice of loving each other in spite of differences—differences like affirming vs. non-affirming. This is preferable to demanding doctrinal correctness (on either side) concerning a small aspect of sexual ethics­: something that affects around 3% of the population, a topic on which there are six explicit verses in the Bible.

Practically this means allowing for differences of belief and action on both sides. LGBT people—acting with a clear conscience—should be able to marry the same sex, transition genders, and be leaders in a congregation. On the other hand, an affirming theology should not be officially adopted by the church. Non-affirming members should be free to hold dissenting opinions. Just as many churches tolerate a range of opinions concerning pacifism and just war (and whether it is permissible to serve in the military), churches should allow members to hold and practice different beliefs on this topic.

I advocate this not because I think the topic is unimportant. I’m gay and I care deeply about it. But this debate should not divide the church. My conservative Bible professor used to quote the helpful adage, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” This is a non-essential matter that feels essential because of the supercharged emotions that accompany it. It is a clash of conservative and liberal presuppositions that are more products of culture than of Christ’s teachings. I’ll unpack that below.

Finally, the church should adopt a “third-way” stance not just because the reasons this argument gets so heated are misguided (though they often are). This is a chance for the church to witness to a beautiful and important aspect of the gospel: that because of Christ people who disagree over important things can still live together in peace.     

A Non-Essential that feels Essential

Some of us like to think of ourselves as objective computers that collect data, analyze it, and formulate unbiased conclusions. But human beings don’t work like that. As neuroscientist António Damásio has demonstrated in his work with patients—patients who due to brain damage have limited emotions—humans use emotions to make decisions about everything. His patients agonize over which restaurant to choose or which day to schedule an appointment. Emotions play a large role in little decisions, and also in decisions about things like the morality of same-sex relationships.

In his book Unclean, psychology professor Richard Beck observes that homosexuality has been seen by the Christian tradition as disgusting. Disgust is one of seven human emotions for which people have universal facial expressions across cultures. While core emotions such as surprise, anger, joy, and sadness can be observed in babies, disgust comes later because it is taught by culture. Beck relates the story of his son who, in the New York subway, grabbed some gum off the floor and chewed it (16).

At times, we might talk ourselves through disgust. We might feel disgust at the notion of eating chicken feet and yet do it in order to receive hospitality, or decide to touch a disheveled stranger’s lips with our own in order to administer life-saving breaths. But when some Christians experience the feeling of disgust in regard to same-sex relationships, they take it as a God-given moral compass meant to help them tell right from wrong.  

I’m not accusing conservatives of manufacturing disgust. Growing up in this culture, even though I’m gay, I sometimes feel disgust at things like the sight of men kissing. But I believe I was taught this feeling. Some cultures, after all, regard men holding hands or even kissing as normal. The fact that I feel somewhat differently about women engaging in public displays of affection makes me think that this sense isn’t directly from God.

Being gay I often—in place of disgust—feel joy at the sight of two men kissing. Joy is another core human emotion. The longest stretch of joy I ever felt came from being infatuated with another guy. I loved being loved. I loved loving. It is tempting to take this feeling as a sign of approval from God. Jesuit priest and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote that “Joy is the infallible sign of the presence of God.”

This is the problem. One person’s disgust collides with another’s joy. Disgust, designed to protect us from ingesting harmful food from which we get sick or die, is a potent and powerful emotion. Joy, on the other hand, taps into our brain’s reward centers and sends the command: you’ve done something right! Do it again!

One side thinks, “Given the obvious sinfulness (read: the disgust I feel) of same-sex relationships, those people have forsaken what it means to be Christian.” The other side thinks, “Those people are so opposed to human flourishing (read: the joy I feel) they’re clearly the self-righteous religious leaders Jesus would have condemned.”

So let’s begin by taking a deep breath. The Christian doctrine of sin teaches that our feelings can deceive us. Disgust might help us detect sin or it might be a sign of a Pharisee heart. On the other hand, our culture tends toward an idolatry of romantic love so our joy may be in the service of worshipping a false god.

At the very least, let’s humbly admit that our feelings may influence how we think about this. Given the powerful emotions associated with this topic, we tend to feel that being right about this question (either affirming or non-affirming) is central to faith. In fact, there is good reason to believe this is an important matter but ultimately peripheral to an orthodox Christianity. There is good reason for a “respectful conversation.”

Beyond the emotions that make this conversation so tense, conservatives claim that this is an essential matter because it is about “the authority of Scripture” and liberals that is it about “justice.” Both of these claims are mistaken.

Scripture

The debate over same-sex relationships and the Bible is not one about Scripture’s authority, but of Scripture’s interpretation. This may seem preposterous to some conservative Christians. After all, there are six verses about same-sex relations and they all speak against it. Anyone, conservatives assert, who denies that Scripture speaks against homosexuality is engaged in rationalizations for a cherished yet sinful behavior.

At its most simplistic, this view sees the Bible as a kind of moral encyclopedia—pick an ethical question, look up the entries about it, obey the answer. But a few quick tests reveal the inadequacy of this view. Is it okay to wear clothes that blend fabrics? Have multiple wives? Eat road kill? Look up the verses. The answers are: no, maybe, no. Perhaps more disturbing, look for the verse that says definitively that slave-holding is a sin. It is not there.

The Bible is more a storybook than it is a morality textbook. It is a story in which the father of our faith, Abraham, sets aside previous promises of God about becoming a great nation through Isaac and attempts to sacrifice Isaac to demonstrate his faith. It is a story in which Jesus sets aside Sabbath laws related to harvesting and claims that “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). It is a story in which the early church sets aside Biblical prophecy that the Gentiles would learn the law from Israel (Isa 2:3, Mic 4:2) and deem the law an unnecessary burden (Acts 15:10-11).

The Bible is less like a law book than it is a mystery novel in which all is revealed and interpreted through Christ. A reader of Scripture, seeking to submit herself to the authority of Scripture, might ask questions like the following with integrity: Since the primary expression of same-sex relationships in the first century was older men with 13 to 17 year-old boys, could it be that Scripture is condemning that practice rather than modern day relationships of equals? Since Christ said “Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice’” (Matt 9:13), what does it mean to learn mercy in relation to LGBT Christians? Have we been sacrificing LGBT people for our own sense of righteousness? Might we Gentiles, for whom the law was put aside, now need to “put aside” the law for the sake of yet another group thought to be “far off” from God (Eph 2:13)?

I could list many more honest questions. The point is, the question is not whether to accept the Bible’s authoritative teaching on homosexuality. The question is, how do we understand the different Biblical strands in relation to this topic? It isn’t, as Misty Iron’s pointed out, “are you for or against the Bible?” It is a question of how we interpret certain Biblical texts (those that command love for the marginalized) against other Biblical texts (those which seem to condemn same-sex relations).

Obviously, a sophisticated case, one which takes into account the narrative arc of Scripture, can be made against same-sex relationships. See, for example, Richard Hays’s masterful The Moral Vision of the New Testament. But a case can also be made for same-sex relationships which takes the authority of Scripture seriously. For a recent example, see James Brownson’s excellent Bible, Gender, Sexuality.

Justice

Just as conservatives think that this is an essential issue because it has to do with respect for the Bible, so too liberals think that this is essential because it is an issue of justice. A typical rejoinder to a third –way stance might be, “and would you also advocate a position that officially allows racial prejudice in your church?” 

No. But that is unfair. It is one thing to discriminate against a person because of an immutable biological trait. It is quite another to discriminate against a behavior because of a sincerely held belief about Scripture’s teaching.

As simple as the above statement is, I can imagine a storm of protest from some of my LGBT affirming friends. In the next three paragraphs I’ll try to explain why this is so contentious. If you find the above unproblematic, you might want to skip ahead.

In modern western culture there are dearly held principles which are usually assumed rather than debated. These principles include the importance of freedom, individualism, rights, and equality (FIRE, my former pastor John Alexander used to call them). Think for just a moment about how important these principles are to us: 

• Freedom is one of the few things for which people are willing to die.
• Anthropologists say that the trait that most differentiates western culture from others is individualism. For instance, a non-western person with a strong tribal identity might report thinking first about any occurrence, “how does this affect my tribe?” rather than, “how does this affect me?”
• Rights form the foundation of our democracies.
• Equality is one of the most hard won values we have whether it be the civil war, women’s rights, or #blacklivesmatter.

 Given these values, self-expression and authenticity as seen as great goods. Freud’s legacy concerning the centrality of the libido has formed us and made us think that sexual-expression is crucial to healthy human flourishing. All of this combines to make us think that each individual, has the equal right to freely express her sexuality as she sees fit. Any restriction of this is fundamentally unjust. As sociologist Robert Bellah writes, “Anything that would violate our right to think for ourselves, judge for ourselves, make our own decisions, live our lives as we see fit, is not only morally wrong, it is sacrilegious” (Habits, 140).

While I believe the FIRE values have done great good, and have their roots in the Judeo-Christian story, they should not be ultimate. At the center of the Christian story is a person who gave himself for others in obedient, self-sacrificing love. It is consistent with the Christian story to ask people to take up costly behavioral disciplines such as monogamy in marriage, or celibacy for singles and the same-sex attracted.

I wish conservatives would have more empathy for the power of this argument. I recently had lunch with an intelligent, conservative man who had a thorough knowledge of the traditionalist arguments.  I knew there would be no possibility of him doubting his condemnation of same-sex relationships.

Because our sexuality is deeply interconnected with our personhood, it was hard to not take this personally. My feeling was, “you just don’t get it.” I wish I had attempted something like the following:

I grew up in the conservative church, and because it didn’t distinguish between orientation and behavior, I grew up loathing myself. It is difficult to communicate the cost of this. It contributed to significant sadness and self-destructive behaviors aimed at medicating my self-hate. The same church that caused such pain is telling me that I’m not allowed to enter into a bodily, healing, reciprocal relationship of covenanted, faithful love. That is hard to take. It doesn’t feel like Christ’s love. It doesn’t feel like mercy.

I can imagine him responding, “Well, the traditional church needs to do much better at distinguishing between orientation and behavior, but that doesn’t mean we can condone the behavior.” And I have to concede that such logic is rational.

Here is a little disclaimer. For some LGBT people, going to a third-way church, a church in which some people might condemn same-sex relations, gender-transition, etc., may trigger PTSD symptoms. For such people, I recommend a “welcoming and affirming” church. But for most of us, church shouldn’t be an exercise in relating to “people like me.” Rather, it ought to be a place where we engage the difficult practice of relating to people who, in all kinds of ways, are unlike ourselves. To say that most LGBT people can’t hack a church in which people disagree with us is ultimately patronizing, and its own kind of prejudice.

Essentials

Even if this debate were about “the authority of Scripture,” or “justice,” (which I dispute) it still would not justify dividing from one another.  Just before Christ goes to the cross Jesus prays for his disciples, in what one enthusiastic preacher called “Christ’s most important instructions, in the last huddle, before the big play.” He prays that his followers might “become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (John 17:23). He prays that they “may be one, as we are one” (17:22).

Given this, the criteria for Christian division ought to be very high. The clearest case for division is when someone persists in heresy. What constitutes heresy? Theologian Steve Harmon defines it this way, “A heretic is someone whose account of the Christian story is so dangerously inadequate that’s really an altogether different story than the biblical story of the Triune God” (Ecumenism, 21) Justin S. Holcomb, Episcopal Priest and author of Know the Heretics, writes “The apostles were not afraid to denounce heresy. If a teaching or practice threatened the gospel’s integrity, they strongly condemned it. . .” [emphasis mine] (CT, 42). Writing in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today he commends the creeds as a guide to identifying heresy and writes, “If a believer genuinely accepts the Nicene Creed, they should not be dubbed a heretic” (CT, 45).

Clearly, by these definitions, one can hold either an affirming or non-affirming view, without being a heretic. Still, it is a long way from “not being a heretic” to “someone we actively welcome in our church despite views on sexuality with which we disagree.”

Ken Wilson in A Letter to My Congregation, a book that beautifully blends a pastoral heart with incisive theology, lays out the case for a third-way approach which urges the welcome of such differences. Wilson examines Romans 14 and 15 in which Paul gives counsel to the Christians in Rome about a “disputable matter.” The matter appears to be an argument about food sacrificed to idols and the observance of special days such as the Sabbath (Rom 14:2-6).

For modern believers, these issues appear to be of little consequence. We’re tempted to think, “Yeah, the whole vegetarian vs. vegan vs. carnivore controversy. That again.” Or, “Saturday versus Sunday worship. Get a life!” But for those early Christians, meat sacrificed to idols posed the specter of idolatry. Idolatry not only violated the first of the ten commandments, but was the most denounced sin of Israel in the Old Testament. The Sabbath command was also one of the ten commandments—the foundation of Judeo-Christian ethical teaching. For early Christians, these were crucial, critical, central issues.

Paul concludes his treatment of the controversy with the exhortation to both sides to “Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God” (15:7). This may be the conclusion not only of this passage, but of all of Romans. Gentiles and Jews, the “weak” and the “strong,” (people some commentators compare to liberals and the conservatives) were in conflict with each other. Paul urges them to live a unity borne of the confession that “Jesus is Lord.” This heals the fundamental Jew-Gentile divide in the ancient world, and can heal the polarized liberal versus conservative divide in the modern world.  

Good News

As our world suffers conflict, I doubt our best witness is to “get it right” and seperate from those who are “wrong.” Our most prophetic witness will be as we bridge divisions of race, class, gender, and the liberal versus conservative chasm. If we can live with each other in love and peace across those dividing lines, then we will have something to offer the world that others will know as “good news.”

We’ve had so many causalities in this conflict. We’ve ruptured families, churches, and denominations. We’ve hurt sexual minorities and alienated sincere Christians. We’ve neglected crucial topics like mission, service, and worship for the sake of the fight. We’ve maligned each other and thought the worst of each other. We’ve brawled so that it has spilled over into the press. We’ve eviscerated the Gospel witness that because of Jesus we can be reconciled not only with God, but with one another. 

Because of these things, most of this essay appeals for less anxiety about this matter. This topic, as important as it is, should not be a cause for separating from one another. Obviously, it will take some creative thinking to imagine how people on different sides of this question can welcome one another in the context of a local church. Please see Wilson’s A Letter to My Congregation on this as well the third-way website for more help with practicalities.

Faith, as I suggest in my book Oriented to Faith: Transforming the Conflict Over Same-Sex Relationships, is not being certain of every ethical issue. Faith is the “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (emphasis mine, Heb 11:1). In the midst of all the causalities and conflict, God is at work for the good. Knowing that, we can participate in God’s good work by welcoming people who believe differently than us—knowing that as we do so—we imitate Christ who so generously welcomes us.