I believe that God has uniquely positioned New Direction to be in a posture of facilitating, catalyzing and informing hospitable, gospel-centered conversations around the intersection of faith and sexuality. And I believe this is important because:
1. It is consistent with the person, ministry and teaching of Jesus.
2. It helps create space for those outside the heterosexual mainstream to explore and grow in relationship with Jesus Christ.
3. It models an authentic way of relating with an often cynical and alienated unchurched generation.
And I do pray that God will continue to give the courage and perseverance that is required to embody gracious and generous spaciousness on a topic that has so often divided, hurt and alienated those for whom this is a very personal and real reality.
I found it somewhat ironic then when I came across a link to an article from today’s Toronto Star. The headline is: “’Does God care if I’m gay?’ ads irk TTC riders”. The problem it seems stems from the campaign of an evangelical ministry called, “Bus Stop Bible Studies”. This ministry places ads on Toronto’s city buses with the intention of getting people to “consider their relationship with God”. Each ad has a question and then a link to a website where an answer is offered.
Apparently, the answer connected to the “Does God Care if I’m Gay?” question has now been taken down off the website – so I don’t know what the full response was. The newspaper article suggests that the longer answer boiled down to this particular statement, “We know from passages throughout Scripture that God hates homosexual acts BUT no more than any other sinful act.”
As one who is familiar with the broader conversation on faith and sexuality in our culture might imagine, this whole exchange prompted complaints coming into Toronto’s Transit Commission – sufficiently so that a review was called for – though at the time of the article a decision had not yet been made whether or not the ads would be pulled.
The quoted response from the ministry on their edited site was, “It has become apparent that, while one is free to ask the question, `Does God care if I’m gay?’ one is not so free to answer the question from a Biblical perspective. It seems that the whole message of God’s justice and grace was being misinterpreted. If anyone was offended by the original narrative we offer our sincerest apologies, this was never the intent."
My fuzzy recollection is that I’ve talked with some folks from Bus Stop Bible Studies at Mission events in the past. I don’t remember specifics, but my impression was that these were sincere people with a passion for evangelism and to get people thinking about their faith. In reading of this particular scenario, I don’t judge the attitudes or question the motives of these fellow Christians.
But I do question why they didn’t consult with a ministry like New Direction before wading into the middle of this kind of public engagement. Now, maybe they did consult with other organizations who have experience in engaging these realities. I don’t know. What I do know, is that we could have been helpful to them in their desire to reach out and connect with gay people. We could have helped them understand the kind of dynamics that would arise with this sincere, but I might suggest under-informed, initiative. We could have had some conversations about how to engage a post-modern, post-Christian, diverse context. They might not have agreed with the insights we could have shared. They might have gone ahead with the ad anyway. But at least they wouldn’t be protesting, as they currently are, that the reaction to the ad has been “blown out of proportion.” Because we could have predicted the kind of response they’ve received. And we could have asked the tough questions about whether these were the outcomes that they were really shooting for …. And whether or not this initiative, and the predictable response to it, is really helpful in advancing a gospel informed mission connection with our gay neighbours.
As it is, they didn’t talk to us. And today we have more Torontonians shaking their head, annoyed and frustrated by a religion that they feel is arrogant and smug in its certainty - not to mention completely 'out to lunch' on this issue. And those Torontonians may never make it to this blog. And they may never know of the kind of conversations that do happen around questions of faith and sexuality. And, if I’m honest, I feel like today’s Toronto Star article puts us yet another step backward in bridge-building efforts.
It would seem that our commitment to engage in bridge-building is as relevant as ever. We have plenty of work to do.
-WG
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
This ministry places ads on Toronto’s city buses with the intention of getting people to “consider their relationship with God”. Each ad has a question and then a link to a website where an answer is offered.
While I applaud their intention, I have to say that I think their methods are inherently flawed. My relationship with Divinity is a deeply personal matter, and asking me to consider it through such an impersonal approach as putting up bus ads is counterproductive, in both my opinion and my experience.
This is actually an issue I have with many Christian organizations and churches on many levels, so it's not something I'd be particularly critical of Bus Stop Bible Studies or this particular ad. I feel that people in general just need to realize that "mass media outreach" is a bad idea in general due to the fact that it makes the personal far too impersonal.
Also, I'd like to take this time to both congratulate you on ND's official decision and offer my sympathies that it has resulted in a parting of ways with some of your board members. I imagine it's a bittersweet moment for everyone involved.
Jarred - I tend to agree with you in terms of method. While I don't limit what God might do despite the limitations of our methods .... I clearly favour a much more relational style of engagement.
Thanks also for your kind remarks - yes there are definitely bittersweet moments - but now we can focus on moving forward.
This post has been edited due to the need for further conversation at the ND board level about the meetings of yesterday. Friday, April 2, 2010.
Yes it would have been helpful for them to speak with you, but the dynamics of a situation of this type are such that what you describe rarely happens.
Henry Blackaby in his book Experiencing God urges people to find ministry avenues where God is already working and then come alongside to help them.
In reality, ministry organizations trip over each other trying to reinvent the wheel.
I disagree with your claim to be uniquely positioned to enable dialogue between the LGBT community and Christian conservatives.
Being an enabler requires trust from all sides. You ask LGBT people to trust you, yet your organization is still linked to the ex-gay ministries that commit spiritual violence on us. Links to these organizations are still active and prominent on your New Direction site. How can any LGBT person trust someone who seeks to throw them to the "pray away the gay" wolves?
So are you a Side X wolf in Side B clothing? It's not until that question is answered, and answered convincingly, that you'll even begin to have any credibility in the LGBT Christian community. Your grand design of "facilitating" will come to nothing until we can figure out where you stand and whether that stance is an honourable and reliable one.
Hi Saekker,
I think part of our unique positioning is the history of New Direction having been an ex-gay ministry and travelling the journey that we have.
Yes, our New Direction website continues have the contact information for Living Waters on it as a potential resource with this description:
"If you are a follower of Jesus and interested in going through an intensive course that addresses sexuality and relationships with a focus on healing prayer, you may want to consider checking out a Living Waters program in your area."
In my experience, Living Waters programs vary from group to group depending on the leadership team. Living Waters is not solely focused on same-sex issues - but looks at sexuality and relationships more broadly. For some people, it can be a tremendous resource. For others, it is not a fit at all. When someone asks us about the potential of being part of a Living Waters program - we try to help them discern if it is a fit for them or not. (personal note: I have a close family member who went through Living Waters - who wasn't gay - but went because porn had gotten out of control in their life - and they benefitted greatly from the program.)
To assume and make the decision for someone, is I think, fundamentally patronizing. The accessibility of critique of side x is readily available. It is also something that we are very prepared to talk about with any individual who is trying to discern where they should connect in their journey. While you may disagree with everything about Living Waters - and would never participate in a group - there are others who want to know about the availability of that kind of group and own their own decision to participate or not.
Does that make New Direction side X? Does having gay affirming books available through our Amazon link make us side A? We have neither an agenda to push people towards side x nor side a. Our posture, with the individuals who come seeking ministry, is to provide them tools and information to discern where they will land and the kind of resources they want to access. We come alongside in the journey - but it is not our job to control the outcomes.
The kind of engagement we have with individuals seeking ministry is personal to each specific person. The broader conversations we engage around the reality of diversity of perspective on the intersection of faith and sexuality are focused around creating hospitable space and room for questions and searching and finding ways to extend respect across difference. It might seem that you have a very specific idea of what facilitating conversations around faith and sexuality looks like - and it seems that to you it means there is no connection what-so-ever to side x. The reality is, that if side x is not part of the conversation - you're really not bridging the various perspectives and attitudes within the communities of faith. Part of the conversation might well be identifying limitations and concerns within any of the diverse positions in the conversation.
At the end of the day, we actually don't have some grand design, don't think we're the big voice in the conversation or any such thing .... we're simply seeking to be obedient to God's leading, available to those who want to engage us, and faithful in connecting with people where they're at in the midst of great diversity in the conversation.
OK, so it's not your job to make up people's minds for them. I get that. All you can do is facilitate their decisions for them.
So, if a young pregnant woman comes to you insisting she doesn't want to have her baby, then would you facilitate her decision by referring her to the nearest abortion clinic? And if you did, what responsibility would you bear for the termination of her pregnancy?
If a cancer patient asks you for advice on how to end his life, would you facilitate that decision by putting him on the first plane to Switzerland and booking him a slot at Dignitas? And if you did, what part of the responsibility of taking a life would fall at your door?
In the same vein, if someone wants to go down the Side X route and you refer him to an ex-gay ministry, are you in any way responsible when, maybe not immediately, maybe several years down the line, he tries to take his own life in despair at not being able to change?
Because if you've been on GCN at all, you'll know people who've attempted suicide following the intervention of ex-gay ministries in their lives. Maybe you should ask their opinion of the impact your referral might have on someone.
So, if your role is simply to make information available, good luck in managing your conscience if or when the worst happens.
And you're right. I won't dialogue with ex-gay ministries in much the same I wouldn't have dialogued with the architects of the Holocaust. Or with people who make their task of extermination easier. I'm making an exception in this case because certain GCN members are lavish in their praise of you. But considering your support for Side X, I don't understand why. What am I missing?
Regards
Steven
hello steven,
my good friend christine, who is one of the founders of the beyondexgay website, has the grace to point to some of the good things that came out of her exgay experience even as she is a very public spokesperson for the harm that can come through ex-gay or reparative initiatives. in my speaking within the christian community, i have been heavily criticized for my critiques of exgay ministry. i think a critical distinction to make is between those who choose a side x route because they think that is their only option to be able to journey with God - and those who have informed conversations about the variety of ways that gay christians integrate their faith and sexuality. you may find this very hard to understand or believe, but there are informed people who make the decision to explore how God might work in their life through a program like living waters. and at the end of the experience, that same person may say, "this was helpful. this was unhelpful. i'll take the good, leave what was a disconnect for me and move on in my journey with God". now that can be hard to do if you are in a system that tells you that if you don't continue in that particular system you are out of God's will - and the ex-gay survivor stories poignantly illustrate what such a coercive environment can do to a person. but on the other hand, the picture you paint of same-gender attracted people who are trying to figure out what they want to explore in their journey is a concerning one - people who don't have the capacity to discern or determine what will be healthy for themselves, people who can't be trusted to not make a choice that will be so devastating they'll consider killing themselves. i'm sorry, but i think this is really condescending. at ND we want to honour people's autonomy (while at the same time, we want to speak about the overall idolatry of autonomy in our christian culture at large - i know - a paradox). we want them to be well informed and free to make decisions that they believe are consistent with God's direction in their life.
so, understanding the critiques of ex-gay ministry, who might still want to experience a program like living waters? perhaps someone in a mixed-orientation marriage, perhaps someone who is struggling with addictive behaviours (ie. porn, anonymous encounters etc.) who is seeking to gain mastery, perhaps someone who experienced sexual abuse and is seeking healing from such trauma, perhaps someone who has always functioned in emotionally unhealthy ways in relationships .... i'm not sure how familiar you are with living waters - but to characterize it simply as "pray the gay away" is an over-simplification. i would be the first to say that living waters is not a fit for everyone. but for those who express their christian faith in a more charismatic, healing prayer paradigm, this may be an experience that will be of help in their journey. some will move beyond those paradigms - and will look back with a mixture of feelings about their experience in that paradigm. but that is their journey - and God can be trusted to keep leading them - it isn't our job to control their journey or prevent them from our perception of unhelpful engagement.
note: my comment is too long to fit in one - so i'll post it in more than one part
personally, i went through a season in my life that was very heavy on the charismatic, prophetic, prayer ministry type paradigm. i'm not in that place today. i look back and there are some good things that i take forward in my journey with me - and there are some things i am more than happy to leave behind. but if i now try to prevent, for example, my own children from ever exploring the spiritual experience of that particular paradigm and expression of the christian faith - simply because i'm no longer in that place and there is the potential of them being hurt or misguided in that paradigm - i am occupying a place of control that will, in the end, backfire from the goal of my kids owning their own spiritual journey. if i feel that way about my kids - how much more ought i to guard against trying to control what another adult can be or not be exposed to?
there are things that as a parent, i would tell my children would just be stupid to do or try (ie. drugs). and there are things that i might say to a fellow adult discouraging them from exploring because i believe them to be so harmful. in the area of sexual identity, these would include aversion therapy, therapy that tries to prevent self-determination, therapy that doesn't acknowledge the diversity of perspectives around same-gender sexuality etc. but to suggest that no one at any time should be free to explore if a program like living waters might be of benefit to them personally is a place i would not want to go to.
so am i so supportive of side x? is that my secret hope for people? no it isn't. i look at the research and am quite well aware that even degrees of movement towards re-orientation are rare. i personally think it is healthier for a same-gender attracted individual to come to terms with the reality of their sexual attractions with a healthy level of self-acceptance and then live in a manner that is consistent with their beliefs and values.
but i am also aware that for many conservative christians who experience same-gender attraction, they need a place where they can talk about these realities - and a place like living waters might be the only place they feel comfortable connecting. GCN might be too threatening, they might think it is too liberal. they're too fearful to check out any gay-affirming places. they feel totally alone, ashamed and afraid. living waters might at least give them a place to be honest, to share, to be real about their sexual identity for the first time in their life. will i prevent them from connecting in the fear that living waters might teach them a paradigm that hinders more than helps them? to be honest, i have to entrust people's lives to God - that he'll keep moving them forward in their journeys - that his deepest concern for them is that they find themselves confident and secure in his love for them. and maybe part of the way they'll get there is to begin the journey by being honest in a living waters group.
steven, i can appreciate your concern for your fellow gay brothers and sisters. i can understand that you do not want anyone hurt by exgay ministry. i don’t either. but i think things are a little more complex than you are presenting.
self-determination is a really big deal in this journey – and it is not something i’m willing to compromise. that means that people will make choices at times that i wish they wouldn’t. but this is the cost of freedom.
Wendy
I notice you didn't answer either of the questions I prefaced my last post with. They weren't completely rhetorical, you know. How you answer them gives a good indication of how responsibly you live your faith. If you take responsibility for some issues but not for others, where do you draw the line? When a life is involved?
Well, when it comes to Side X, lives *are* involved.
You may well think you can assess each person yourself first and only send those who you feel can handle it to Living Waters, but your website says otherwise.
How many people have looked at your site, seen the words "Need Support?" in big letters on the home page and thought, ""yes, I need support", clicked on the associated link, gone to Living Waters and been chewed up and spat out without you even knowing they exist? How many traumas have you already facilitated that you know nothing about? How many suicide attempts, nervous breakdowns and lives broken forever?
But it's not your responsibility, right? It would be condescending of you to remove that link. It would interfere in their sovereign decision making process. Well, you may see it that way, but I see it as a dangerous abdication of personal responsibility. You know what ex-gay therapy can do. You know that many people will react badly to it and maybe suffer considerable trauma into the bargain, yet you set them up to take that route from the moment they consult your site.
To a confused, traumatised young gay person reeling from being rejected by parents, friends and church, that offer of support is like waving crack under the nose of an addict. So they come to Living Waters without you even getting a chance to practice your "discernment" on them. Is this responsible behaviour from someone who claims to understand the pitfalls and risks of Side X therapy? It certainly doesn't look that way to me.
From the perspective I'm coming from, this makes you a dangerous person. And when you believe someone to be dangerous, all the dialogue in the world won't make a blind bit of difference. Words are just words when they're not backed up with confidence and trust.
Regards
Steven
Hi Steven,
Yes I am over here to. I am going to put my Side A hat on for a moment .. bet you didn't know I had one of them. Per Side A (affirming) theology the people in Romans 1 were straight people who were acting gay .. ie . having same sex sex due to lust / idolatry. This also applies, I believe, to the I Cor 6:9-11. Per Side A theology these folks (in I Cor) were adult men in heterosexual marriages who had a young boy on the side for sexual favors. And I believe even in Leviticus there are some who believe that these were straight folks having same gender sex.
In these examples (above) you have straight people (per Side A) who are having same gender sexual activity. So what do you do with them??? They existed (apparently) in biblical times... and I think it would be a bit disingenious from a Side A view to say that these people came out of nowhere .. had same gneder sex and then vanished never to appear again. I have seen discussions on GCN between Side A members that talk of situational homosexuality that can occur between straight people in a same sex prison. So it seems that the possibility of people acting against their nature is recognized by the Side A community ....well at least parts of it.
What would these people need? They certainly do not need to be told that they are gay for per Side A .. they are not. In fact Side A would say that they are the very ones scripture is talking about ie. acting against their nature. Just because someone is having same sex sex does not mean they are gay. These foks do not need orientation change (they are already straight). They need to figure out who they are and why they are acting against their nature (which the bible would say is sinful from a Side A perspective).
My point in all of this is to recognize that people are complex and there can be a bit of gray in this. There may indeed be people acitng against their striaght nature who are calling themselves gay because of someone else's assumptions about them. And, sadly, there have been many who are gay who got confused and thought they were in this other camp. The only way this can be sorted out is for the individual to seek UNBIASED professional counsel to sort this out in their own heart and mind. The individual is the best one to determine whether they are truly gay or not and if they are gay .. what to do about it. It seems to me that this is what Wendy is advocating. Now to be honest I think the writings of Warren Throckmorton would be helpful here. If you google him you will find his blog. He is the closest I have seen to being neutral and honoring self determination on the part of the counselor / councilee relationship. I might add that he has caught a lot of flack (form the religious community) for his position of allowing self determination.
If a person is troubled about their sexual identity they have a right and may indeed have a need to find someone who will let them sort this out without a predetermined theological agenda or a predetermined shame agenda. Finding such a counselor will not be easy as biases exist across the spectrum. Whether Living Waters is such a place or not is unknown. But the individual who is seeking has a right to search and I would hope .. from what Wendy has written .. that they would be appropriately warned by her of the pitfalls of the exgay approach. I know I would warn them. But regardless of what I would say or anyone else would say the person is going to do what they want. That is a sad reality in pastoral work.
Blessings,
Dave
Dave
So you consider ex-gay ministries as unbiased counseling services, do you? The fact that they call homosexuality or same-sex attractions evil doesn't count as bias?
Go to the Living Waters site and you'll find same-sex attractions listed along with alcoholism, drug addiction and self-hatred as evils you can eliminate from your life. Unbiased, you were saying?
Or maybe you're talking about New Direction rather than Living Waters. Again, bias runs though their site. Bias in favour of Side B. Bias in favour of Side X. And while there may be some Side A book references on the ND site, as far as I'm aware there are no links saying "Need Support?" that take you to Side A affirming organisations. If you need support at New Direction, all the website links lead to Side B or X. And that's biased, is it not?
Of course ND has the right to be biased in favour of whichever side they choose. I'm not disputing their right to believe what they want to believe. The point of my intervention is as a response to Wendy's call for dialogue. Every individual has a right to his beliefs. But the right to foist those beliefs on others is not automatic.
There are some beliefs that quite simply preclude all possibility of dialogue. Many Side A people, myself included, flatly refuse to talk to proponents of Side X. So when we come to a supposedly Side B site and find prominent links promoting Side X solutions that claim to make evil same-sex attractions go away, any good-will and trust that we might have started with simply evaporate and up go the walls. Protective walls. Walls that keep us safe from those who would destroy us.
Conversation can only take place in a safe environment and few Side A people feel safe anywhere near Side X. Experience has taught us not to.
And BTW, I won't be drawn on anything to do with the clobber passages. Wendy has indicated that these discussions should be framed along the lines of "gospel-centered conversations regarding the intersection of faith and sexuality". I'm sure I don't need to tell you that Leviticus and Romans are not gospel texts. So any discussion of them must be extraneous to the conversation at hand.
Amitiés
Steven
Hi Steven,
I most certainly do not consider exgay ministries to be unbiased. Thats why I mentioned Warren Throckmorton. I do find him to be rather unbiased and professional. Though I assume you are being sarcastic here.
Bridging is not about talking to peope who believe what you do. It is about talking to people who do not believe what you believe. Its about maintaining your own beliefs while listening to another's beliefs. It has been my experience that much can be learned and there can be things found that one does agree with. Sometimes .. the things one agrees with can far outweigh the things one disagrees with.
I will admit that I generally do not spend much time bridging to exgay ministries. I do stereotypically find them to be too anti-gay politically and otherwise.
Blessings and peace,
Dave (p_dave)
Not sure if anyone is still reading this, but I think the question is not just who ND links to or connects with, but how things are presented who might be in a vulnerable place and simply find the website.
I found the "side A" references to be minimal and insufficient and skip over the diversity of "side A" which include multiple interpretations of Romans 1, for instance, that are affirming. "Side A" isn't completely uniform either.
ND really needs a page outlining the various positions, with more extensive links and references, and any references to any ministry with any exgay element should have a big warning on it of the pitfalls.
It's not about limiting choices, but about making sure people who rely on and trust the ministry are as informed as possible. And for that, perhaps you need a more thorough dislogue with and input from "side A".
Christine - these are all good suggestions ..... but there are some internal controls that have not yet given us the green light to make these kinds of changes. It is not for lack of dialogue with side A. Internal governance is a little more complex than that.
Post a Comment