Archive for category: Musings

 In the concluding chapter of my recent book Respectful LGBT Conversations that emerged from my eCircle on human sexuality, I propose some concrete steps for a “Way Forward” for Christians, churches, Christian colleges and denominations currently struggling with issues related to human sexuality. A common element for many of my proposed “next steps” is the need for ongoing respectful conversations among those Christians who have strong disagreements about these contentious issues.

This leaves unanswered the crucial question as to the results that may emerge from such ongoing conversations. Ignoring the suggestion of a number of my conversation partners for this eCircle that it is folly to attempt to predict this future, and tempering my own favorite adage that “you cannot predict beforehand the results of a respectful conversation,” some of my experiences since the publication of my book embolden me to peer a bit into that future.

The context for what I envision for the future is set by two of my proposed next steps for a Way Forward. My primary proposal is the need to Build Relationships of Mutual Understanding and Trust with those with Whom You Disagree (279-282). A second proposal that is a “means” for building such personal relationships of mutual understanding and trust is the need to Listen to the Stories of Your LGBT brothers and Sisters in Christ and Listen to Those Who Disagree with You About LGBT Issues (265-266).

Given that context, two recent sets of experience in my local setting prompt my audacity to predict two directions for what may emerge in the future.

First, I have found it to be a challenge to gather together into the same room for conversation those Christians who embrace a “traditional” view of marriage (reserved for a man and woman) and those Christians who embrace a “non-traditional” view of marriage (God will bless a monogamous, life-long marriage commitment of same-sex partners).

What I have generally found is that the non-traditionalists are anxious to talk, while traditionalists have much less interest in talking with those who disagree with them about same-sex marriage. I think I understand somewhat the reason for such reluctance to engage in conversation on the part of many traditionalists. The non-traditionalists are calling into question the status quo (the traditionalist view) in many churches and denominations. What is to be gained by engaging them in conversation? To do so could upset the status quo. 

The context for a second set of recent local experiences is that my calling for “listening to the stories of your LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ” in one of my proposed next steps had two sources. The first source was the regret expressed by the leaders of my case studies for two churches and a Christian university that a significant deficiency in how they attempted to navigate strong disagreements at their institutions was that they didn’t adequately listen to the stories of the LGBT individuals within their churches or on their campus (238-242).

The second source of my call to “listen to the stories of your LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ” was the powerful effect on me of hearing first-hand stories of how LGBT individuals were seeking to faithfully live out their commitments to be followers of Jesus, and how difficult and painful that has been in their church and denominational settings.

Well, since the publication of my book, I have listened to a few more of these moving stories from LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ, which has amplified the urgency of my call for inviting them to recount their personal stories and for those of us who are not LGBT individuals to listen with great empathy.

My conclusion from these two sets of recent experiences is that the results of my proposed steps for a Way Forward will depend on who is given a voice in future conversations and two distinct directions will emerge, which I will now seek to describe.

One direction that I believe will emerge will be for an increasing number of Christians to create venues that will enable our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ to tell their stories, whether in churches, Christian educational institutions, denominational meetings, or local coffee shops.

To create such safe and welcoming spaces where LGBT persons are given a voice will require a significant measure of courage on the part of Christian leaders; especially those whose constituents will threaten to withdraw institutional support if LGBT members are allowed to speak up.

When LGBT Christians are given safe and welcoming spaces to tell their stories of how they aspire to faithfully live out their commitments to be followers of Jesus, I believe that all who listen carefully to their stories will be open to taking a fresh look at the Bible, rethinking possible interpretations of those specific biblical passages that appear to clearly condemn same-sex relationships in the context of the overall message of the Bible, similar to what was done in the late nineteenth century relative to those biblical passages that appear, at first glance, to condone the institution of slavery. 

I believe that the hermeneutical conclusion that will be reached by many members of this segment of the Christian church is that the context for those biblical passages that appear to preclude any same-sex relationships is not that of same-sex couples wanting to enter a monogamous, life-long marriage commitment and, therefore, these biblical passages do not preclude such a covenant commitment.

If this interpretation that these particular biblical passages are “silent” relative to the sanctity, or not, of a monogamous, life-long marriage commitment, is the most adequate interpretation, how does one proceed? Members of this segment of the Christian church will typically argue that Christians must discern what the overall message of the Bible is relative to the possible sanctity of such a lifelong commitment. A common persperctive is that the Bible teaches that every human being needs to experience intimate relationships with other people characterized by enduring commitments to give and receive love that seeks to foster the well-being on the other and that for humans who have not chosen their sexual orientation, this means that God will bless a life-long marriage commitment of same-sex partners.

Of course, I am only predicting here that this is one direction relative to human sexuality issues that will emerge among Christians; a direction that will emerge when our LGBT brother and sisters in Christ are “given a voice” in a safe and welcoming environment. 

I believe another direction will emerge. A segment of Christianity will continue to hold strongly to a traditional view of human sexuality without providing their LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ a safe and welcoming space to express their commitment to a non-traditional view.

Evidence for this second direction includes the challenge I have experienced  when trying to get those who hold a traditional view of same-sex marriage into the same room to talk with LGBT Christians and their allies. This stance on the part of many traditionalists amounts to “silencing” their LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ; not giving them a “voice.”

Such “silencing” is not unique to my experience. I know it to be the case within some Christian institutions of higher education, where the existence of a group of LGBT community members is acknowledged, but they have been effectively “silenced” in the larger campus community (e.g., since they are not an officially sanctioned campus organization, they are allowed to hold meetings, but such meetings cannot be officially advertised campus-wide).

In conclusion, as I peer into the future, I believe that the distinction between giving our LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ a “voice,” or not, will lead to the emergence of the two directions I have described, which will co-exist without significant respectful engagement between Christians in the two camps.

But having said that, I believe that those Christians who opt for giving their LGBT brothers and sisters in Christ a “voice” have made the better choice from a Christian perspective. I base this assertion on my belief that all Christians are called to love others, and you do not love someone who you have silenced.

The following is an edited version of a talk I gave at the Townsquare Coffee Shop in Orange City, Iowa on October 19, 2018

In his posting titled “The Spirit of the Parties” for my eCircle on “Reforming Political Discourse,” Kevin den Dulk, a political science professor at Calvin College, proposed that the major pathology in public discourse these days, especially on any issue that is political in nature, is “tribalism.” In my own words, here is the scourge of tribalism.

It is human nature to gravitate toward those who are like us. Where that tendency becomes very destructive is when we will not give careful consideration to the views of those who are not like us in that they disagree with us. We create an us-versus-them mentality that effectively silences “them” (they are wrong, we are right, so why should we even listen to them).

As den Dulk points out, such tribalism, which he labels “affective polarization,” reflects a deep emotional attachment to the in-group and a visceral reaction against the opposition – the out-group. In light of that emotional attachment, there is no incentive for you to talk to any of “them” to see if they have some good insights that you could incorporate into your thinking.

As den Dulk has also noted, tribalism becomes extremely destructive when an unwarranted extrapolation is made from a belief that the other is “wrong” to a belief that the other is “untrustworthy, immoral, and dangerously threatening.” If being “wrong” about something makes us “evil,” than we are all in big trouble.

In her recent book Fascism: A Warning, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright paints the dangers of tribalism even more starkly as engendering “contempt” for members of the out-group who disagree with us.  noting how such “contempt” for the “those people” makes us “unwilling to listen to what others say – unwilling, in some cases, even to allow them to speak.”

Albright adds that such contempt “stops the learning process cold and creates a ready-made audience for demagogues who know how to bring diverse groups of the aggrieved together in righteous opposition to everyone else” (A compelling warning in our present political climate).

Such “tribalistic contempt” for “those other people” is not limited to non-Christians. Too many of us who profess commitment to the Christian faith all too often mimic the ways of the larger secular culture by resorting to name-calling and demonization of brothers and sisters in Christ and others who disagree with us about controversial issues.

So, in summary up to this point, a telltale sign of tribalism is an unwillingness to even talk with those who disagree with you because me and my people have the truth and you and your people don’t.

The Colossian Forum, a small Christian non-profit organization in Grand Rapids (MI) with which I am affiliated as a Senior Fellow, totally rejects such tribalism. In my own words, the mission of TCF is to “create hospitable space where Christians who disagree with one another can respectfully talk about their disagreements, striving for ‘unity in Christ,’ not uniformity in all their beliefs.” 

The venues for the work of TCF are small church groups that can take courses designed by TCF that address some current “hot-button” issues (to date they have designed what they call “The Colossian Way curriculum” on the creation/evolution debate and human sexuality – for details regarding these excellent resources for churches, go to www.colossianforum.org).

As a Senior Fellow at TCF, I enthusiastically embrace the mission of TCF, but I have chosen the most inhospitable venue for such work, the Internet. I owe you an explanation for such apparent insanity.

In late 2010, I did some research on blogs on the internet and was appalled by what I found. A blogger would post a piece that typically elicited numerous responses from readers, sometimes 50 to 100 in number. But the responses were very cryptic, either applauding the blogger or, more often, vilifying the blogger, resorting to name-calling and demonization. Very few, if any of the responses advanced a genuine conversation. 

As far as being a venue for respectful conversation about disagreements, I found the internet to a cesspool. There had to be a better way to carry out an electronic conversation, possibly even a “Christian way.”

And so, to make a long story relatively short, with the help of a tech-savvy friend, I launched my own web site, www.respectfulconversation.net, about seven years ago, on which I have hosted four 8-11 month extended electronic conversations (eCircles) on some contentious topics about which Christians have strong disagreements.

After each eCircle, I have written a book that attempts to capture the highlights of the electronic postings. The third such book that emerged from my eCircle on “human sexuality,” is titled Respectful LGBT Conversations: Seeking Truth, Giving Love and Modeling Christian Unity (A copy of which I just happen to have with me if you want to take a peek). 

The format for my eCircle on human sexuality was that I chose ten subtopics, including Voices From the Gay Community, Biblical Understandings, Findings From the Sciences, Anti-Discrimination Laws, Voices From Younger Christians, and Case Studies that reported on how two churches and one Christian University navigated the difficult process of developing institutional positions on LGBT issues. 

For each of these subtopics, with the exception of the Case Studies, I recruited two “conversation partners” who I knew would present opposing views for a month-long conversation precipitated by some Leading Questions that I posed. One conversation partner presented some variation of what can be called a “traditional” view of human sexuality, including the belief that marriage is reserved for a man and woman, and the other conversation partner presented a “non-traditional” view, including the belief that God will bless a monogamous, life-long marriage commitment of same-sex partners.

As a result of this eCircle structure, the book that emerged is not advocating for either a traditional or non-traditional position. Rather, its main purpose is to model respectful conversation among Christians who disagree about human sexuality issues, as a Christian alternative to the name-calling and demonization that is rampant in current discussions about human sexuality in the larger culture and, unfortunately, within many of our Christian churches and denominations.

I am delighted to be able to report that my conversation partners modeled such respectful conversation to an admirable degree. For example, my two conversation partners for the  month-long conversation on “Voices from the Gay Community” were Justin Lee, a gay Christian who used head the Gay Christian Network and Eve Tushnet, a lesbian Catholic blogger. Justin believes that God will bless a monogamous life-long marriage commitment of same-sex partners. Eve disagrees with Justin, believing that Gay Christians are called to a life of celibacy. Here is what Justin said at the end of their month-long conversation.

So as I wrap up my part in this conversation, I find myself deeply moved. I am moved by Eve’s grace in disagreement and her friendship to me as we challenge one another. I am encouraged, too, by the depth of conversation we’ve been able to have in six simple articles. But I’m also reminded why these conversations are so important in the first place. Many hurting, lonely people’s lives hang in the balance.

My own position on this topic hasn’t changed, but my appreciation for Eve and understanding of her view has certainly increased, and I’d say that’s worth it. Respectful conversation of this sort is hugely undervalued in the church. It may not always change minds, but it is powerful and effective. Given the importance of this topic, we can’t afford not to listen to each other.

We are, after all, supposed to be known by our love.

In terms of my earlier reflections on tribalism, none of my 23 conversation partners were practicing tribalism. Each participant, whether presenting a traditional or non-traditional position, listened carefully to the opposing view of his/her conversation partner and they then talked respectfully about their agreements and disagreements.

Now that you have a glimpse of the structure of my eCircle/book project on human sexuality, I will consider two themes: (1) The Basic Premise Underlying my eCircle/Book project on human sexuality; (2) A Possible Fatal Flaw in this project.

THE UNDERLYING PREMISE

No Christian I have ever met denies that Jesus has called all who claim to be his followers to love their neighbors (Mark 12:31). So far, so good. But there is considerable disagreement, as to how to give expression to such neighbor-love. 

All my respectful conversation projects focus on one oft-neglected expression of neighbor-love. The premise behind my eCircles and the resulting books is very uncomplicated and easy to state (it isn’t rocket science, at least to state; it is much harder than rocket science to do).

Providing someone who disagrees with you a safe and welcoming space to express that disagreement and then to talk respectfully about your disagreements is a deep expression of love.

A corollary of this premise is: You don’t love someone who you have silenced.

So, my eCircle/Book projects are not peripheral to my Christian faith. They are central to my understanding of how I should live as a Christian.

A POSSIBLE FATAL FLAW

My hopes and prayers for any lasting redemptive results emerging from my eCircle/book project on human sexuality may be dashed by the increasing prevalence of tribalism. 

While the 23 conversation partners contributing to my book reject tribalism, with some good results emerging from their conversations (which I summarize in a concluding chapter that proposes a “Way Forward”), they are the rare exceptions among Christians and not the rule. 

Locally, I have found it to be extremely difficult to get traditionalists and non-traditionalists regarding human sexuality in the same room together to discuss their disagreements. There is a strong element of tribalism in both traditionalist and non-traditionalist circles, with too many Christians in both camps saying “I am my people have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about human sexuality; so we don’t have to listen to and talk with those who hold opposing views.”

The net effect is that my book, which gives an equal voice to both traditional and non-traditional views may leave those practicing tribalism in both camps very unhappy. The traditionalists who are tribal will be unhappy because I have not silenced the non-traditionalists and the non-traditionalists who are tribal will be unhappy because I have not silenced the traditionalists. I have been viewed with suspicion by both traditionalists and non-traditionalists for providing a safe and welcoming space for “those other people” to freely express their beliefs.

So, how can this potential fatal flaw be averted? By calling Christians back to the central Christian virtue of “humility,” a virtue to which Christians give considerable lip service but all too seldom practice. Let me explain.

A CALL TO HUMLITY COMBINED WITH DEEP CONVICTIONS

Being humble does not mean being wishy-washy about your beliefs, fearful to express them in public. Not at all! Being humble means recognizing that you are not God. As a finite,  fallible human being, you do not necessarily have a God’s-eye view of the truth about the issue at hand. As 1 Corinthians 13:12 teaches. We all “see through as glass darkly.”

So, you should hold to your beliefs strongly and be willing to express them in public with clarity and deep conviction. That is NOT tribalism! You are practicing tribalism when at the same time that you hold strongly to your beliefs, you fail to acknowledge that you, and those who agree with you, may be “wrong.”

It sounds paradoxical. You hold to your beliefs strongly at the same time that you hold to them tentatively, because you may be wrong. So, you need to talk respectfully to those who disagree with you to see if they have some important insights that you have missed.

The late Christian historian Ian Barbour has given eloquent expression to the nature of this rare combination in his definition of “religious maturity.”

It is by no means easy to hold beliefs for which you would be willing to die, and yet to remain open to new insights. But it is precisely such a combination of commitment and inquiry that constitutes religious maturity.

Openness to the beliefs of others without commitment to your own beliefs too easily leads to sheer relativism (I have my beliefs, you have yours; end of conversation). Commitment to your own beliefs without openness to listening to and respectfully discussing the beliefs of others too easily leads to fanaticism, even terrorism. (As C. S. Lewis has observed, to which past and recent world events tragically testify, “Those who are readiest to die for a cause may easily become those who are readiest to kill for it.”).

One of the most pressing needs in our world today, is for all human beings, whatever their religious or secular faith commitments, to embrace, and hold in tension, both commitment and openness.

 

The following musing was published on August 7, 2018 on the “In All Things” blog, a publication of the Andreas Center of Dordt College in Iowa.

 Listening to a story radically changed my perspective about my immigrant neighbors. A Latino mom told about how her daughter would cry before going to school each morning because she was afraid that when she came home, her mommy would not be there; she would have been taken away for deportation.

That story broke my heart. Until I heard it, my immigrant neighbors were faceless statistics to me. Suddenly they became flesh-and-blood human beings who, like me, wanted their families to flourish.

This story, and others like it, were told about eight years ago in a series of meetings on immigration issues sponsored by my church, American Reformed Church in Orange City. We met each Wednesday night for eight weeks to talk “with” our immigrant neighbors, not “at” or “about” them. After these meetings a few of us met and decided that too many of our immigrant neighbors had been rendered “voiceless” by community members who didn’t want them around. We needed to help them tell their stories. We needed to get to know each other so that we could envision and work toward making northwest Iowa a region where all of us could flourish together, whatever our race or ethnicity.

Two concrete initiatives evolved, undertaken by CASA of Sioux County (Center for Assistance, Service and Advocacy), for whom I currently serve as co-director with Judy Hauswald. The first was an online petition to reform our immigration system, which gained the attention of a few of our political representatives. But, sad to say, nothing lasting came of that initiative because for many politicians, our immigrant neighbors are still faceless statistics who are viewed as threats to “our way of life.” They certainly don’t need to be listened to. How can anyone reach such conclusions about people they don’t even know?

Our second CASA initiative has thrived because it was based on the importance of getting to know our immigrant neighbors in a personal way. The seventh annual Latino Festival was hosted at Windmill Park in Orange City on June 26. Each year, many Anglo and Latino neighbors gather together to celebrate the riches of local Latino culture; to enjoy Latino cuisine; to listen to some splendid Latin American music and, especially for the kids, to enjoy games together, where the color of one’s skin makes no difference. To be sure, too many of us still sit at tables with “our own kind,” But we are slowly bridging differences; getting to know one another better toward the goal of flourishing together in our community. This experience of human bonding gives a richer meaning to the word “diversity” than the anemic meaning that pervades American culture.

Too many Americans settle for a thin view of diversity that is, at best, co-existence. We live side-by-side, more-or-less peacefully, with those who differ from us. But we do not really engage each other. As a result, we don’t learn to appreciate and benefit from the strengths and contributions of those from other cultures. As a case in point, I have benefitted greatly from the emphasis on developing close personal relationships that I observe within many Latino families and other Latino groups, which is a much needed corrective to the hyper-individualism that permeates American culture.

The thick view of diversity that we need in America is one where we don’t just co-exist with those who differ from us. Rather, we genuinely engage one another by listening to and talking with them, thereby enabling us to build relationships of mutual understanding and mutual trust that make it possible for all of us to benefit from each other’s gifts and unique stories.

The failure of the first CASA initiative of a “political” nature, when compared with the success of our second festival initiative of a “personal” nature may point toward a potential way to overcome the current deadlock in political attempts at legislating immigration reform. Even more broadly, it may suggest a new way to “do politics” relative to any public policy issue that would be a welcome change from the current dysfunction in the political realm.

Starting with a consideration of American politics in general, the primary cause of the current dysfunction is “tribalism,” what political scientists refer to as “affective polarization”; summarized as follows by Kevin den Dulk:

We often bemoan how ideology or policy preferences on hot-button issues push partisans apart, and indeed these are important concerns. But today’s most consequential divisions are more basic; they operate at the level of identity. Political scientists call this pattern affectivepolarization, a deep emotional resonance with a party – the “in-group” – and visceral reaction against the opposition – the out-group. Our partisan divide isn’t merely about liberals versus conservatives, pro-life versus pro-choice. Our lives as partisans have become downright tribal.

This tragic “us versus them” approach to doing politics too easily morphs from believing that “they are wrong” to asserting that “they are evil.” And it negates the possibility of having respectful conversations about public policy disagreements: after all, “my people are right” while “your people are wrong” (at best, or possibly downright evil, at worst); so, what is there to talk about?

The only way to transcend dysfunctional identity politics is for those on both sides of a public policy issue to be willing to stop demonizing those who disagree with them; seeking, rather, to get to know them. By first listening with an empathetic ear to understand the reasons they have for what they believe, hoping that they will do likewise, a foundation will have been laid for respectfully talking about the nature of our disagreements toward the goal of uncovering some common ground relative to public policy.

As I re-read my last sentence, it is almost laughable in our day of broken political discourse. But it is my dream nevertheless because the need for such respectful conversation about disagreements is central to my understanding of my Christian faith. In brief, it is my deep conviction that providing someone who disagrees with you a safe and welcoming space to express that disagreement and then to talk respectfully about your disagreements is a deep expression of love for the other person, to which Jesus calls all of us who claim to be his followers. A corollary is that “you don’t love someone who you have silenced.”

So, how should all of this apply to the current vitriolic debate about immigration? First, at a personal level, take the time and effort needed to get to know your immigrant neighbors; listening to their stories of joy and sorrow will help you to gain insight as to concrete ways in which you can help them to flourish, together with you. That much you have control of.

What you don’t have control of are the machinations of politicians relative to much needed immigration reform. Based on the premise that it is wrong to make decisions that affect the lives of others without first listening and taking to them, you can dare to be a vocal advocate for a radical sea-change in how politicians decide on immigration legislation; a change that expects politicians to have respectful conversations with their immigrant constituents before they cast their votes on immigration issues.

Here is my punchline. While you can’t predict beforehand the results of a genuine respectful conversation (one of my favorite maxims), carefully listening and talking to those who differ from you or who disagree with you about immigration, or any other issue, will build much needed bridges in our polarized and fragmented world. That is not just wishful thinking, I have seen it happen.

Harold Heie is a senior fellow at The Colossian Forum. His website, www.respectfulconversatuin.net, is devoted to modeling respectful conversations concerning contentious issues about which Christians have strong disagreements. The highlights of a conversation on human sexuality are reported in his recently released book Respectful LGBT Conversations: Seeking Truth, Giving Love, and Modeling Christian Unity. He is currently hosting a conversation on “Reforming Political Discourse.”

 The following opinion piece was published on April 13, 2017 as a Letter to the Editor of the Sioux County (Iowa) Capital Democrat, signed by 18 members and friends of CASA of Sioux County. The Center for Service, Assistance and Advocacy is a non-profit organization, for which I serve as co-director, that envisions transformed Northwest Iowa communities that welcome, empower and celebrate people from all cultures. 

The Sheriff of Sioux County, Dan Altena, has recently come under criticism for abiding by the County policy of not honoring Detainer requests from ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) unless a judge has approved such detention with a probable cause warrant.

We believe that this criticism is unwarranted because it reflects a failure to make a distinction between the responsibilities of local and federal law enforcement officers. It also violates the U. S. Constitution and erodes public safety.

Here is the way that ICE Detainers work. If someone is arrested or charged with a crime, local law enforcement processes the case until a conclusion is reached. If a conclusion is reached that does not require further local custody, there is no legal basis to hold the person any longer. In fact, judges in a number of states, including Oregon and Illinois, have already ruled that such ongoing detention violates the constitutional rights of the person being held. All people, even those who are undocumented, are protected by these rights.

Furthermore, the enforcement of immigration law is a responsibility of federal law enforcement, not local law enforcement. The expectation that local law enforcement carry out federal responsibilities has a negative effect on public safety since it erodes the trust that is needed between local residents and local law enforcement officials.

The decision to not honor ICE detainer “requests” (honoring such requests is not a “requirement”) is not peculiar to Sioux County. Twenty-five other counties in Iowa and hundreds of counties throughout America have adopted the same policy for the purpose of protecting rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution and promoting public safety.

This debate points to a larger issue; the need for comprehensive immigration reform that includes BOTH strong border enforcement and appropriate punishment for those who are living here without legal status (for example, fines rather than the deportation that is tearing apart many immigrant families) AND a pathway to either citizenship or permanent residence for our many immigrant neighbors, the overwhelming majority of whom are making a very positive contribution to local culture and to our local economy. Such a both/and solution will be possible only if politicians on both sides of the aisle get beyond hyper-partisan either/or thinking by talking respectfully to one another.