Lausanne concludes: Reflections on the Sexuality Conversation

On the last day of the Lausanne congress, we came together as Canadians to begin our reflections. I say begin because there will be a lot to unpack and some more space is needed to process such a multi-faceted and significant event. There are many blessings to count. Many incredible stories to savour. Many beautiful people to maintain connection with. I worry that I am too sparse in my recollecting the amazing gifts given throughout the week. Though as downloads are available, we will be able to share many of those highlights directly.

A comment in the Canadian gathering, however, was that this congress felt old. I agree. There seemed to be more looking backwards than looking forwards. Now even as I say this, I am acutely aware of the reality of the tremendous diversity in this global village of evangelicals. I would dare to say that for many participants, this was not their experience. The tone, trajectory and temper of the congress may well have been absolutely on target for their context. And many, I’m sure, leave the congress feeling greatly encouraged to move into the next season of mission in their context.

There is a paradoxical dilemma that I see. On one hand, there was the murmuring that the west had too much dominance and power at this gathering. In particular, there was a very American feel at times both in male voices on the platform and in the production of the event – especially aspects of the opening and closing ceremonies. This lingers as a question for me. It seemed clear that there was a lot of intentional attention given to try to diversify the voices that were heard. And yet, a western overtone seemed to shine through. Part of this seemed to be connected to time. If 5,000 people are going to proceed through not only the program but also the ever critical meal times, then time must be stewarded in what inevitably feels like a very western management style. Yet, the longing to linger, to not feel rushed through times of sharing and prayer was palatable. And for speakers who normally have great freedom, time constraints cramped their style so-to-speak. It was interesting to me that some of these sentiments also emerged in the Canadian gathering. Seems that outside of our schedule-driven lives, we too long to experience the unforced rhythms of grace over time-dominated strictures.

On the other hand, there seemed to be in the overall tone a reticence to make application to western contexts. There were some happy exceptions. But in terms of engaging the postmodern, post-Christian context, there seemed to be very little and the ongoing perception that these realities were negative, to be avoided, eradicated etc. For many of us functioning within these paradigms, we see opportunities. And it seemed that this was not acknowledged, addressed or invested in.

For this reason, I think my fellow Canadian made the comment that the congress seemed old. And I felt this in the multiplex and dialogue sessions pertaining to sexuality. When all the presenters are from one paradigm of ministry that is a clear clue that there will be a deficit in addressing the diversity of context that the participants will be navigating. Having speakers from various nations will itself not fully address this need if all they all come from a similar perspective. This was true of the sexuality conversation. Because all the presenters came from Exodus, this was not only the dominant paradigm – it was the only paradigm presented – and the only ministry promoted. Of course, I am biased, but I think this was not only disappointing but a disservice to participants – particularly those from North America, the U.K, and western Europe where the contexts are gay-positive and post-Christian.

Even as I say this, however, I am very aware of the tremendous challenge of the organizers and those who did speak and offer their presentations. Because the level of readiness is so different across the spectrum, and because the level of sensitivity is so high, it became almost necessary to present to the lower levels of readiness. I don’t mean for that to sound judgmental or paternalistic. But if you have a participant in whose cultural context homosexuality is not discussed at all and you have a presenter talking about generous spaciousness, the result may be less than edifying for that participant as they try to process many levels of complexity all at once. It may well sow confusion, fear and division. And while part of me wished we could have met together as westerners to have a robust conversation, in a congress such as this, you cannot separate groups / contexts. This is an opportunity to be together. To serve one another. To listen to one another. To begin to separate groups would only perpetuate a sense of segregation.

Having said this, there are some observations that I would make. Exodus’ continuing reluctance to recognize the word gay as descriptive rather than definitive perpetuates an unhelpful divide between the church and the cultures we are called to engage. It is the Exodus paradigm that perpetuates the idea that when one describes themselves as gay they are making definitive statements about their identity. This idea has quickly lost ground in the cultures in which we live – particularly in the west. If you ask a young person what their friend means when they say they’re gay – you will most often get the reply that it means they are attracted to their own gender. The assumption that this description dominates their identity and life is one that is perpetuated by the church, not the gay individual. It is an assumption that has not kept up with society-at-large. At the congress in the opening days, several presenters referred to the text that speaks of the men of Issachar who knew the times and what they should do. I think it is unfortunate that old understandings were presented as the norm rather than acknowledging that these may be enclaves of the Christian community that no longer mean the same things to those beyond the church. The same could be said of the notion of labels. The presenters spoke of not wanting to be labeled – yet if you ask a gay young person if they view that as a label – they would likely say no. To them it is an honest description of what they feel that is open to the definition they place on it. I guess my bottom line question is why there is so much fear about the word gay. The Exodus paradigm perpetuates this aversion to the term as though it held some terrible, evil power in and of itself. I just don’t see that in my context. This is a reality that people experience. If we cannot acknowledge it, in the common language of the people around us, how do we ever expect to meet them where they are at?

Interestingly enough, the Exodus presenters did use the terms gay and lesbian. But they only used them when referring to people outside of the church with the presumption that they were sexually active. This creates a very distinct “us vs. them” posture. “We” are not gay, maybe same-sex attracted ….but most definitely not gay…… “they” are gay. An “us vs. them” mentality feeds right into some of the worst assumptions and mindsets of those in other contexts, perhaps most significantly the global south and Africa in particular.

There was one speaker from Africa in the multiplex on sexuality. Thankfully he only had seven minutes – which he seemed to insinuate was a slight. He claimed that the only homosexual persons in Africa were those who came from the west, had gone to the west, or who travelled a lot. Now it may be true to suggest that those who dare to describe themselves as gay in the African context are those who have had experiences outside of their cultural context to understand language and experience differently. But to suggest that no one else in Africa experiences same-sex attraction as a dominant and persistent orientation is simply ridiculous. He finished his talk by suggesting that Africa should take the leading role in bringing morality in this area back to the world. My natural response would be to choke and make some sarcastic and cynical response about the ignorance such a statement reveals. But that would be too easy and it would perpetuate division, segregation, a different type of apartheid. Rather, this raised much greater complexity in navigating the landscape of post-colonial Africa that is fiercely seeking to protect their culture which inevitably means protecting social understandings that I, as a westerner, see as oppressive, unjust, dehumanizing. To bring my understandings to their context seems just another extension of colonialism. To suggest the need for humility for my African brothers only seems to indicate that I see myself elevated in my embrace of humility. My only hope, in this challenging arena is to return to the person and ministry of Jesus. Jesus did not protect and perpetuate the culture of his day. He superseded culture in his radical inclusiveness. He broke social stigma wherever he went. He embodied a more radical humility than I could ever hope to model. My only hope is to connect with my African brothers around the person of Jesus.

My Exodus brothers did this in some ways as they pled with the audience to reach out with love and grace to gay people. As they shared their stories, they broke certain levels of social stigma. But when it came to the reality of enduring same-sex attraction they did some tip-toeing. It was acknowledged – but if you weren’t really listening you might have missed it. In my personal opinion, one of the most important social stigmas to break was not addressed …. the reality of gay Christians. Because Exodus folks will not describe themselves as gay – which is completely their prerogative – the reality of gay Christians was not addressed. I think in this context the reality of our partnered gay Christian brothers and sisters would have raised such angst, anger, division and confusion that it would have been unhelpful to try to have conversation. But simply the reality of same-sex attracted Christians who are working out their faith and sexuality in different ways was an element that was significantly missing in the presentation. Of the three men who shared parts of their story, two were married to women. The one who was not married made the statement that you don’t need to have sex to live – which was met with rousing applause – including from Africans despite that fact that singleness seems barely viable in their contexts. I wish I had unequivocally heard from each of the three that they continued to experience same-sex attraction. They obliquely referred to this – but did not clearly state it. I think this would have been really helpful in this context where people are dealing with English as a second language and might miss some of the nuances. Because if same-sex attraction does remain, then the church needs to acknowledge and relate to people in light of this reality. Sexual minorities do exist. They are decidedly not just heterosexuals with a homosexual problem. (Can I tell you just how much I hate that line?!)

The other reality that was not stated was the reality of diversity in the church. I wish that something had been said that acknowledged that we have brothers and sisters in Christ who come to different conclusions on this matter. It was clear that the dominant position in this congress was a traditional interpretation of Scripture to understand that sexual intimacy is reserved for monogamous male / female marriage. Fair enough – it was a global gathering of evangelicals afterall. But, an opportunity to view those who hold an affirming view as fellow Christians with whom there is disagreement was missed. This would have been a clearly controversial statement to make. But, a hugely significant one to risk making.

Rather, when gay affirming theology was referred to, it was referred to in a manner that seemed like a sneer, that was belittling and dismissive. I think this was not only unnecessary but deeply unfortunate. At the congress we studied the book of Ephesians. This letter reminds us not to make enemies of flesh and blood – because there are spiritual powers which are the issue. When a sneering attitude is relayed towards those who hold a gay affirming theological perspective, the “us vs. them” paradigm is perpetuated in stark contrast with Jesus words to extend the most love to those we differ with, those we may perceive to be enemies. In fact, Jesus asks what it profits us when we love those we agree with – but that the world will truly see him through us when we love those we disagree with. This love was not evidenced in the presentations. And a tremendous opportunity was missed.

Grace was talked about a lot in the presentations. 100% grace and 100% truth. Although usually it was stated, 100% truth and 100% grace. The emphasis on grace was wonderful. One African pastor got up to comment on how this moved him and he called the church to repentance. This was beautiful. But the truth and grace again hit a certain line. Because the conversation did not include how we live in mutual grace with Christians, both gay or not, who come to different perspectives, the sense was that grace was for those who would adopt the traditional teaching that excludes gay relationships.

The challenge here is that this was a congress on mission. And many of the stories of practitioners in varied contexts talked about unconditional love, patience, building friendships, living among ….. It was clear for these practitioners that they were not agenda driven but love driven. They were in their contexts to serve, to bring shalom, to see the lives of those around them blessed and improved regardless of their response to the gospel. How would this translate in a gay-positive context? What does it really mean to live incarnationally among sexual minorities? What does it mean to see their lives flourish? And what does it mean to partner with gay Christians in this mission? We heard amazing stories of contextualized Muslim churches in which the pastor was called an Imam. This really stretched some people, and likely not everyone agreed with such contextualized approach to serving Muslims (personally I thought it was beautiful). But no one stormed out of the congress. No one started a protest or petition. The practitioners on the ground were speaking to the future – to innovative and creative ways of reaching a people in their own context, embracing diversity, living in generous space.

In none of the other stories was there an emphasis on the sin of those they were living among. Not so much that they thought the people were sinless – but it was not the primary point of reference or the primary issue. As mission-motivated people, they wanted to live among the people as a living representation of the love of Christ. They wanted to be a living letter. I wish with all my heart that we would have heard some courageous conversation around what it truly means to live incarnationally in a gay-positive context. I wish the conversation had actually considered cross-cultural integral mission as it intersects with this people group. I wish we’d explored together what it means to lay down agendas and to move into the neighbourhood, to serve, and to bring shalom. I wish we’d really thought about what it means to lay down control and to simply live as a living expression of the love of Christ. I wish there would have been an acknowledgement of the place of gay Christians in this calling – other than those who now flee the contextualization of this people group (i.e. “I would be really offended if someone called me gay” was what one Exodus leader told me. ) In my opinion some of these additions into the conversation would have equipped us to move into the future – regardless of whether we live in Canada, England, Hong Kong or Brazil. The diversity in the church is not going away – even if it could be ignored and dismissed in an evangelical congress of 5,000. Gay Christians are not going away – even if they are not acknowledged by evangelicals. And somewhere in the mysterious economy of God, I believe that these realities are part of his plan for the whole church to take the whole gospel to the whole world. Even the apostle Paul in response to the reality that some people were preaching Christ with wrong motives simply said that what mattered was that Christ was being preached. To eradicate diversity as it manifests itself in this subject area is the wrong focus, I believe. Rather, the question in front of us is how we find common ground in the person of Christ, how we grow in entrusting one another to the leading of the Holy Spirit, how we learn deeper humility and generosity in relating across differences, how we enlarge our capacity for hospitality …. For as we do these things, we live out the unconditional and uncompromising love of God.

-WG

Meeting with Uganda's Archbishop

This morning I met with Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda. I want to be clear about my posture in going in to meet with the Bishop. My concern was to come humbly, from a pastoral perspective, with a missional heart and the voice of an advocate for sexual minorities. I did not come into the meeting as an activist. The reason that I adopted this posture is multi-faceted. I do not suppose that in a brief meeting with this individual that I will be a change agent. I don’t suppose that anything I can say in a few moments would be anything he has not heard. But if I adopt this humble posture, I can perhaps be in a place to hear his heart, to discern his sensitivity to the issues beyond his country and his church. If I adopt this posture, perhaps I can communicate, without words, that someone from the west is willing to listen and not just charge in with a confrontational and aggressive tone. If I adopt this posture, perhaps a connection can be made that might possibly lead to further conversation rather than a tense polarized talking past one another that will terminate any further reflection or shared dialogue.

To my surprise, I had nearly an hour of conversation with the Bishop. I will admit that he did most of the talking – but none-the-less, I found some opportunities to interject some questions, observations and a sharing of my context and the perceptions of those I serve.

The primary questions I wanted to ask the Bishop were:
1. How have you considered the impact of your words and actions in Africa on the witness of followers of Christ in gay-positive contexts?
2. How have you considered the impact of your words and actions in Africa on the witness of followers of Christ to sexual minorities?
3. How is the African church demonstrating the ministry of Jesus in honouring the humanity, dignity, worth and value of sexual minorities both in your context and in our globalized community?

As the conversation meandered, as conversations with those from other cultural contexts are prone to do, a number of things began to emerge.

The Bishop was quick to point out that those in the west presume those in the African context to be ignorant and uneducated about matters of sexuality. He stated that this was not accurate – but that cultural differences were behind the differing ways church leaders in Africa spoke about and responded to the issue of homosexuality.

When I suggested that the perception of someone like me, having spent the last week in Africa and speaking with many African leaders and hearing many Africans’ comments, was that the church in Africa was seeking to stamp out homosexuality – to eradicate it, he quickly replied that this was not the case. He said that same-sex sexual relationships have been present in Africa for many, many years and that they acknowledged that there would always be people with these ‘tendencies’ (his words). He added however, that socially it is simply unacceptable in the African context, those with these ‘tendencies’ would not be viewed as normal.

When I observed that many Africans seem to talk about homosexuality as a distant issue that lacked a human connection, I asked him how a same-sex attracted person who was not involved in a sexual relationship would be treated by the African church. His first comment was to say that in his context they would not understand attraction the way that I would – and he went on to describe deep and intimate male friendships in his context. But then he described how a person with same-sex attraction would continue to be embraced by the family and larger community – but would be pitied and not be viewed as normal.

When I asked him how they might engage a person who continued to experience same-sex attraction who made a commitment to live celibately. He replied that in his context, almost no one chooses to be single. In his life, he has only known one man and one woman who remained single in his community in Uganda.

It seemed he had a somewhat linear trajectory for the transformation that he would expect for a person who has faith in Christ – which seemed in part to arise from both his Scriptural and cultural convictions. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to really press him on this issue. But this raised concern for me – for he seemed to insinuate that because his culture viewed things differently, same-sex attracted Christians would experience transformation because the social constructs were different. He seemed to insinuate that this was a given – that moving on to heterosexual marriage was a given.

The Bishop did, however, say some surprising things. When I asked him about the impact of his words on our missional and relational endeavours in the west he made several comments. First, he talked about the secular media and the lack of control he had over which soundbites they chose to capture. But then he also said that if he was in the Canadian context he would speak differently about the topic than he does in Africa. When he described how he would speak in Canada, he mentioned that he wouldn’t say much about same-sex unions but speak more generally about God’s intentions for sexuality. He sounded reasonable as he described how he would engage in the western context. He continued to refer to the place his people were at culturally – and indeed, we are a much more individualistic people than the family and community oriented Africans. But when I asked him about bringing greater awareness and education into the African context, it seemed that he was not open to that because in his words he feels that Africans feel that the west is slowly eroding their culture. Indeed, at the Lausanne conference where I am meeting with him, there is a very profound sense by the global south that those from the west project a dominance and hold the power positions. Here at the conference there have been a disproportionate number of Americans on the platform. So, it is understandable that Africans have this fear of another wave of cultural colonialism.

Perhaps it was when he spoke of his own family that I was able to hear some of his heart. He has a son and a daughter who both live in the U.S. He said that if his son or if his daughter were ‘this way’ (his words) that he would accept them even though he would not accept their behaviour if they were part of a same-sex relationship. He said that of course he would love them unconditionally. When I asked him about helping his people to understand that kind of acceptance, he again seemed to retreat behind African culture and said that his people were not ready and would not understand that.

What I found in the Bishop was a man who spoke with personableness and warmth. What I encountered was a man who deeply loved Jesus. I encountered an educated man. I encountered someone fiercely proud of his African culture. I also encountered a man seeking to be wise in his context – but that wisdom seemed to me to be at times shadowed by the expectations of and his deference to his culture. While on one hand he seemed to understand the need to humanize what is so easily an angry issue in his context, on the other hand, I could not understand his seeming reluctance to be an agent of change. Perhaps that is my western filter. Perhaps I cannot understand the priority of protecting a cultural system despite ways that it dehumanizes people because in my country we barely know what our culture is. But I am left with the challenge that the call of Jesus to the church supersedes culture. And the call of Jesus unequivocally extends dignity to every single human being as an image-bearer of God and of inestimable value. The call of Jesus is invitational and therefore extending dignity to those whose beliefs and/or values differ from ours is non-negotiable.

I spoke with him about the ministry of Jesus who went to the margins of his society and broke social alienation. And I tried to challenge him that this is what the African church is called to do for same-sex attracted neighbours in their context. This breaking down of social stigma is at the heart of Jesus’ ministry.

I would imagine that some of my friends and contacts will feel quite disappointed or possibly angry that I did not discuss in detail the anti-homosexuality bill with the Bishop, that I did not more assertively confront him. But my sense was that God wanted more than a five minute meeting …. And indeed, I got an hour. Not only that, but the sense that God will bring me back to Africa. That the Bishop and I will have further conversations. While I have a holy impatience, I also pray for a holy patience. I pray that I will be able to assume the kind of humble posture that God can really use in the long haul.

I don’t know what the Bishop will take away from his time with me. It isn’t about me. But I pray that God will continue to challenge the Bishop to step out from behind his culture to lead the African people to live out the truly invitational and loving embrace of Jesus Christ.

-WG

Lausanne: Joys and Challenges

There are two days remaining in this one week global congress on world evangelization. It has been a very full and challenging experience. I wanted to come and be part of the Canadian delegation to this third Lausanne congress for several reasons. For some time I have been sensing that in light of the reality of globalization God was wanting to prepare me to participate in a more global level in the conversation around the intersection of faith and sexuality. I would be the first to admit, however, that despite Canada being very multi-cultural and affording me the opportunity to engage with people from very diverse ethnic backgrounds, I have little to no cross-cultural experience. Coming to South Africa to spend two weeks in not only the African context but also connecting with 5,000 delegates and guests from countries all over the world would give me a crash course in listening to and learning to relate. In this cross-cultural setting, the normal complexity surrounding the conversations on faith and sexuality become staggeringly complicated. On one end of the spectrum, you have nations where the context is very gay-positive and often simultaneously quite post-Christian. On the other end of the spectrum, you have nations that are pervasively homophobic and often simultaneously living in the midst of a strong Christendom paradigm. Fostering conversation with the hope of dialogue in such a diverse context is extraordinarily difficult.

However, at this congress, there are a series of presentations and dialogue sessions around sexuality. And that is the second reason I wanted to come to South Africa. All of the sessions are being led by Exodus leaders from different world regions. When I first heard about this I had some concerns that this was the only paradigm being presented. I wanted to be present to observe how the presentations were handled and to listen to how people from very different contexts responded and interacted.

The other reasons I wanted to be at Lausanne were connected to my heart for the church in general and my desire for us to live in the fullness of our calling (see my previous post and my 8th Letter for more on that). It is reported that Augustine said, “The church is a whore, but she is my mother.” For me, there is an enduring love for the Body of Christ – even as I grieve for the ways the church stumbles, struggles and sometimes wounds more than she heals. I truly wanted to hear how the Body of Christ was serving and bringing shalom into some of the most challenging contexts in the world.

In my orientation to be a table group leader (we are seated in tables of 6 for the morning sessions of Biblical study and presentations), the leaders challenged us with the reality that we would come with expectations that either would not be met or met in very different ways than we expected. So from the beginning I have tried to resolve to have a very open heart to the things God wanted to show me and teach me.

One of the first things that happened in the congress was a time to get to know the people at your table group. At my table is a pastor from Kenya, a missions worker from South Africa who is connected with the Maldives, an American woman serving on a missions board, and a pastor from Finland. Within moments some things I might have expected were challenged. The pastor from Finland was very fundamentalist in his posture. One of the first things out of his mouth was his lament that today he would no longer be able to be ordained in Finland because he opposed the ordination of women …. he made these comments even though he was well aware that there were two female seminary graduates at the table. A few moments later, the Kenyan brother and Finnish brother were animatedly discussing the evils of same-sex marriage. It was a rather rough start, and despite being the table leader, I was probably feeling the least safe of anyone at the table. I began to wonder whether my hope for cross-cultural engagement was way too idealistic …. and if I am honest, my hope dipped.

Then the Biblical expositors began to take the stage – and I really wondered if I was the right person to be at this congress. The brand of evangelicalism that was being promoted seemed the farthest thing imaginable from the heart-felt poem / love letter lament I’d prepared for the 8th Letter conference. The depth of certainty came with nostrils flaring in passion that could just as easily have been perceived as arrogant anger. I am not judging the hearts of these men – only describing my sense of receiving their messages. As you might have guessed from my 8th Letter, I do not view questions or doubt as an enemy of faith. Rather, I think wrestling promotes a more robust and vibrant faith. Certainty, on the other hand, does not strengthen faith – in fact, it may even weaken it. Who really needs faith when you have all the answers? Who needs God desperately when you have everything figured out? It is not that I do not think there is truth – but like one presenter from former East Germany, I think truth is a person – embodied in the Incarnated One, Jesus Christ. Truth is personal and relational. And Jesus is still revealing himself to his people. That means our faith cannot be static – nor can it be encased in the kind of certainty that seemed to be bellowing from the stage. It also means that we are called to worship Jesus not worship the Bible. Don’t misunderstand me. I believe God reveals himself to us through Scripture. I think Scripture is necessary to come to maturity as a disciple of Jesus. But Scripture is given to reveal Jesus, not as an end in itself. Again, from my 8th Letter, I think we are too prone to make an idol of literal text.

But before you think the entire experience has been challenging, let me share with you some of the amazing highlights. In addition to expositors, on-the-ground practitioners from many countries and many difficult contexts have blown my socks off, inspired me beyond measure, and both lifted and broken my heart. A wisp of an Indian woman who works as a lawyer with International Justice Mission to free slaves and bring slave owners to justice. A Muslim-born female follower of Jesus who has gone on to become a pastor, who speaks all over the world, who started a church planting movement of profoundly contextualized Muslim house churches, spoke with the confidence, strength and power that broke the curse that Muslim women are second-class citizens. The Palestinian woman and Israeli man who shared their journeys of allowing God to break their hearts for the other and with a longing for reconciliation now work together for peace in their conflict-ridden land. The black woman from Zambia and white man from South Africa, both HIV positive, together sharing stories of perseverance and advocacy in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The lone female expositor, who happens to come from my denomination, who hit it out of the park with a message of justice, equity, and shalom for those on the margins. And the woman whose husband had been murdered just two months ago in Afghanistan on his way back from a medical mission to a remote village, who shared with quiet and profound strength the depth of her commitment to Christ and to love the people of Afghanistan that she and her husband had committed their lives to. And truly, these are just a few of voices and highlights of what has been an absolutely wondrous story of people living out their faith in practical, loving and self-sacrificing ways.

If my experiences sound a bit schizophrenic – they are. The church I see modelled by some of the expositors is a church that seems foreign to me – and one that I would be hesitant to invite my friends and neighbours, in my Canadian context, to be part of. One moment drove this home when a few of the expositors were on a panel about globalization. One of the American speakers was loudly proclaiming that the global south needed to come to save the west and to help the west to rediscover the truth of being church. A few moments later, one of the African speakers got up, and with a beautiful humility, acknowledged that in African countries where the percentage of Christians in the country tops 80%, they had more “church-ianty” than they had Christianity. Do we really need a revival of Christendom in the west – replete with all the overtones of empire, power and control? I pray not.

The good news is that while some of the expositors seem to be living in the theoretical world of modernity-shaped certainty – where the expectation is that they provide the answers and the people simply absorb it and nod in agreement, the actual practitioners – in many different cultural contexts – are living out an integral, incarnational mission in which justice for the oppressed is an intrinsic reality and mutuality in community is experienced.

The bad news, at least from my subjective perspective, is that because of the stature and prominence of some of these expositors, their influence is significant and their style demands agreement or the consequence of exclusion. And it seems to me, that this feeds into cultural systems where either modernity is being newly embraced or is firmly entrenched - systems that in-and-of-themselves are distinct from the living story of the living God.

But …. I am learning, even in this week at the congress, to not limit what God can do. My Kenyan brother at my table both surprised and blessed me this week. One morning I had the great privilege of literally witnessing his heart change over the course of a few hours. His initial posture towards Muslims had been very adversarial and hostile. He spoke of how his country was mainly Christians – but now Somali refugees were coming in – and they were Muslim. Not only that, but some of these Somali’s were pirates and had a lot of money and were buying land in Kenya. He spoke of mobilizing the pastors to pressure the government to limit the Muslims who could come into their nation. But as Muslims who had become followers of Jesus shared their stories, we could begin to see him change. We began to see the humanization of a Muslim person connect with his mind and heart. And being a man of prayer, who listens to the Holy Spirit, we could see as he began to realize that God was calling him to befriend and build relationship with his Muslim neighbours. My few sentences don’t do justice to this phenomenal experience. God was at work in a man’s heart right in front of my eyes – and it was amazing. Not only that, but as the week progressed, he asked to talk with me about my work with sexual minorities. When we sat down to talk, there was an openness there that had not been there in the beginning of the week. He was able to humbly admit that this was all so foreign to him and to his people, to admit to his own need to learn so much more. But it was a wonderful beginning.

In the sessions on sexuality, I have experienced some ups and downs. There are some nuances in the Exodus presentations that I differ from – and that I have some concerns about in the sense of how they will translate into different international contexts when people take a few 30 – 45 minute presentations back home with them. No matter who you are, it is extremely difficult to tackle as complex a topic as this one in such a radically diverse setting when you only have 30 minutes (or even 15 minutes) and many of the listeners have pretty broken English in terms of comprehension. In that sense, the Exodus speakers had both my prayers, empathy and encouragement. They were facing a very difficult task. I wish that in the session that talked about causation – or in their words ‘root issues’ – was not so light on nature and so heavy on nurture – regurgitating Moberly and gender deficits. I wish they would not use the word ‘prevention’. But, it is clear that these are the things they truly believe. And I was glad for some of the moderation I heard.

In the session on transformation, healing and change, I was very glad to hear Alan Chambers acknowledge the enduring reality of same-sex attraction for both himself and many others. This was something he and I had discussed at length as we sat in one of the lounges together. I said to Alan that in this context where the global south is present, it is critical that it is unequivocally stated that for some people this will be their ongoing reality …. that sexual minorities exist. And with this existence, anyone who names the name of Jesus needs to consider that these are men and women who are image bearers of God, worthy of dignity and respect and protection regardless of whether they hold the same beliefs and values that you do. Particularly in the African context where there is the idea that homosexuality can be stamped out as if it were some theoretical ideology that can be simply rejected, it is of utmost importance that the church is confronted with the reality that this is a group of people – a group we can loosely describe as sexual minorities.

Tomorrow is a full multi-plex on sexuality with several presentations. So, I’ll post again once that is completed. In the meantime, I brought a suitcase of our Bridging the Gap DVD’s with me and I have been giving away about 5 per day. In this congress, these DVD’s are subversive, pushing the envelope, perhaps would be considered contraband or outright heresy by some. I feel almost like the stories I was told as a kid of Bible smugglers. It is exciting to think of these DVD’s in the hands of people from Ireland, St. Vincent in the Caribbean, Mauritius, New Zealand, England, South Africa, Kenya, Latin America, Brazil, Pakistan and India. I’ve given them to pastors, youth workers, student leaders, a high school teacher, heads of mission organizations, heads of denominations ….. I wonder how God will use them.

A final note: I have a meeting scheduled with Archbishop Henry Orombi from Uganda tomorrow. Many of you will know of the anti-homosexuality legislation in the Ugandan context and Orombi’s support of this tragic bill. For those of you so moved, please pray. I will likely only have a few moments with the Bishop. I will need much humility, wisdom, discernment and courage as I speak with him. Pray that God will surprise me again.

-WG

8th Letter: Prelude to Lausanne

I am currently sitting in my apartment in Cape Town, South Africa where I am attending the Lausanne Global Congress on World Evangelization. I am wanting to blog some of my thoughts about the congress ..... but I think that sharing my letter to the North American church that I prepared for the 8th Letter conference may be a good prelude. The 8th Letter conference was in the spirit of Jesus' seven letters to the seven churches given through the apostle John in the book of Revelation. Several speakers were invited to come together and share in 15 minutes or less their letter with the church of today. If you are interested in hearing recordings of the other speakers, please go to this link. My letter came out differently than what might have been expected. Some people expected that my letter would basically be "start really loving gay people you stupid church people". Now there are times I have thought along those lines, but if I had focused my letter in this fashion it would have only served to perpetuate the polarity and ghettoization of a particular group of people. I have always had the conviction that if the church was actually being the church I would be out of a job and there would be no need for advocacy. So my letter was focused on my overall longing for the church to come into the fullness of her calling - in part by recognizing some of the ways that we fail to fully embrace the reality of being ministers of reconciliation. The other surprise for me was that the letter came to me in a poetic voice. I don't consider myself a poet - and given the amount of teaching and speaking I do, my default position is prose-heavy. What I think is delightful about the letter coming out in more of a poetic voice is that poetry can, at times, by-pass our heads and connect in a deeper place in our being. When I was interviewed about the letter, I was asked what I hoped people would think about after hearing it. My response was to suggest that I hoped they didn't think too much .... but rather allowed the poetic voice to penetrate some place beyond words, beyond our propositions and ideas, and rather to connect to a deeper place where God stirs and unsettles and births new things. Thinking is an important thing - and I'm afraid we have often forgotten how to really think - and we instead allow leaders and experts to think for us. But there is also a danger of getting stuck in our heads, in the world of philosophy and theology, ideas and principles, and in the process our deepest gut can remain complacent and apathetic. So, it seemed to me, that part of receiving a poetic letter was about being catalytic in a different way. The other thing that struck me as I was birthing this letter (seriously, I think I gestated on this puppy for months before it actually came together - and then when it did, I finished it in a few hours), was that it emerged as a mother's voice. I think this is significant. I know Peggy Campolo has been known to say to her husband Tony when he argues that the early church fathers were consistently opposed to homosexual behaviour, "And where were the early church mothers?" Indeed, the voices of women have been so often marginalized in the church. But rather than a feminist voice rising up .... it seemed to me to be the voice of a mother. Now I am a mother - I have three children. But it wasn't about me. It was both the nurturing and firm voice of a loving mother. As for my voice, it was critical to me that the entire love letter / lament was written in the spirit of "we". I am part of the church. Her joys are my joys. Her pain is my pain. Her failings are my failings. Though the letter is a lament - it is not a finger-wagging scolding. It is a love letter of identification. All of this is not only important to preface the letter itself, but it is important for the subsequent blogging I will do about Lausanne. It sets the stage for the joys and challenges I am experiencing here in Cape Town. So ..... here is my 8th letter: My friends who gather in the name of Jesus the humble One….. Oh how I love you. I love your devotion, your worship your prayer. I love your compassion, your concern and your care. I love your celebrations and moments of joy. I love you because we are one. I love you with your blindspots. I love you with your passions. I love you with your half-assed and misdirected efforts. I love with you with your fearful strivings. I love you because we are one. Across the differences that mark the Body of the striped and wounded One, oh how I love you. Through crisis and tumult, factions and fighting…. I love you. Through dogmatic certainties and defensive posturing – I love you. Through divisions, alienation, inequities and injustice …. I love you. I love you because we are one. I love your dreams, your surrender, your service. I love you in your decline, your revitalization, your new initiatives. I love you with your professionalized shepherds. I love you with your programs and strategic plans. I love you with your huge buildings and budgets. I love you because we are one. But oh how this love slays me. It cuts. It groans like a volcano waiting to erupt. This love pulverizes triumphalistic expectation for transforming prosperity. Such love is raw. No niceties here. No please & thank you. No limp-wristed handshakes. This love is pain and this pain is love. Such paradox, my friends, is the tension in which we are called to live, to hunker down and make our home. But we don’t want to. We don’t want pain. We don’t want paradox. We don’t want conflict – even as we cause and create it. We want…. we demand resolution. We grab for our certainties requiring the conformity of all others who come through our doors. Our systematizing elevates closing the logical loop and suffocates glorious mystery. Our bifurcated days and bifurcated hearts consternate and call for perceptions of hypocracy. We, my beloved friends, have missed the mark. Our arrogance rarely leaves us. We sanctify our colonizing tendencies calling it discipleship, blind to our own exclusionary demands of assimilation. “Become like us” We argue ad nauseum and in our loveless debates trample the lives of the real people the issues affect. We fixate on sin and forget the words of the Master – without mercy our sacrifice is useless. Our cynicism dries up our gratitude and we audaciously demand more intense experiences. My beloved friends, we have missed the mark. No one likes to be told they’ve been patronizing, but my friends how condescending we have been….. across the street, across the country, across the globe. Our oblivion to the domination and power plays of our majority privileged status render us oppressors of the invisible kind. And we say, “Who us?” We respond to the prophet from the margins with our power of cash and programs - failing to receive the exposure of our own impoverishment. Oh my friends, we have missed the mark. We talk with clever words of revelation and inerrancy and authority as we make an idol of literal text. We hold conferences and workshops and go to seminaries and we learn so much our cognition thwarts the connectivity of imagination and spirit. We strain to engage story, to glimpse living exposition. But my friends, we miss the mark. We capitulate to compartmentalized and virtual encounters and struggle to enter the chaotic, intimate realities of community. We perpetuate favouritism and dishonour courageous difference. Our privatized lives open doors for hidden escapes. Our addictions and consumptions dull our minds and deaden our spirits. Our aloneness drives us to up the ante on risk and recklessness. Our houses are big, our homes are few. Our world, the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil we till pays the price. Oh my beloved friends, how we miss the mark. We preach on grace but live in fear. We teach Trinity but Sybel-like split God. We reach the lost but project our parched anxieties. Beloved ones we miss the fullness of love. Clanging gongs. Crashing cymbols. What will enlarge our receptivity? Our capacity? Our generosity? Our posture in weakness, humility, powerlessness…… This love is pain. This pain is love. Come, make your home in this tension ….. this place of Incarnation. Heaven meets earth, earth meets heaven. Poverty meets wealth, wealth meets poverty. Exclusion meets inclusion, inclusion meets exclusion. Injustice meets justice, justice meets injustice. Doubt meets truthfulness, truthfulness meets doubt. Fear meets hopefulness, hopefulness meets fear. In these spacious tension-filled places listen for whispers, look for glimpses, sniff for fragrance. Let eyes meet, gazes locked. Seeing anew, crossing borders, singing new songs. Embracing suffering. Inviting obedience. Embodying shalom. Humanity meets God. God meets humanity. The fullness of love.

-WG

The conversation continues: Sexual Purity

The conversation with Shane continues as I ask him about sexual purity.

W: In our ‘Bridging the Gap’ DVD we had the opportunity to speak with Ron and Justin who are good friends, but who hold differing views on the sanctity of same-sex sexual relationships. Ron, traditional in his views and committed to celibacy as a gay man, was commending Justin, affirming in his views and open to a committed gay relationship, for his standards and values related to sexual purity. Ron commented that Justin has taken a lot of heat from others in the gay community for holding the belief that people should wait to engage in sexual intimacy until entering a covenanted relationship.

I think this is a message that needs a voice for this generation of young gay Christians. I also think it is a message that the church community at-large needs to hear – that there are gay Christians who are upholding traditional values and boundaries around sexual involvement prior to marriage.

For you, this is not a theoretical idea, but something that you lived out during your relationship and engagement to Dave. You waited for marriage. I understand you’ve also had a lot of conversations with other young gay Christians about this idea of sexual purity and waiting until marriage. Would you share with us a bit more about your personal journey, what you are hearing from other gay Christians on this subject, and what you would want the church to hear about the commitments of gay Christians to sexual purity?

S: Great to keep the conversation going...

The Biblical understanding of marriage is very confusing because, as people often point out, marriage in the Biblical world was very different than in our world. We see polygamy all throughout the Old Testament. We have levirate marriage (where if a man dies childless his brother is required to marry his brother's wife) and the law where a rape victim is forced to marry the rapist. Predominantly marriage in the Bible seems more about property and producing offspring than it is about love and affection. Advocates for same-sex marriage love to point out these examples when encountering those who advocate for "traditional marriage" or "Biblical marriage" making the point that what we think of as traditional marriage is not necessarily all that close to marriage in the Biblical world. As a result many gay people simply throw out the whole idea of marriage.

Although the definition of marriage in the Bible may be unclear one of the principles that is expressed throughout the whole Bible story is the idea of sex connecting two individuals. This is the concept which is referred to as "one flesh." It appears in Genesis, in the words of Jesus and in the teachings of Paul. I believe that regardless of the intentions of the individuals involved, sex creates a bond between two people. As the character Julie says in the movie Vanilla Sky “When you have sex with a person, your body makes a promise, whether you recognize it or not.”

Interestingly enough, when I was a student I went to a seminar about sex put on by the Jewish Students Association. The Rabbi told us that the Jewish worldview doesn't have an understanding of premarital sex because by having sex they believed two individuals were married.

Since sex creates a bond between two people, I believe the best context for sex is within the confines of a permanent relationship, a context that will last and support the bond created.

Relationships are really hard and I think they are more likely to last if they have support from one's community. For that reason I think it's important to declare your decision publicly. I compare a wedding to a baptism. It's a public declaration of a private decision. You may have decided in private that you are going to commit to this person for life but in a wedding ceremony you make that commitment public. The community acknowledges the promises that are being made and commits to supporting the couple.

Of course it would be great if we always had our government's support (which we do in Canada) or our church's support. But even when that is not possible I think you can gather the people in your life who do support you (which is your community) and make a public declaration in front of them. It's actually really frustrating that our society has made weddings into these huge ordeals that are overwhelming to plan. I think it stands in the way of many people getting married.

When I was dating Dave I went looking for a male couple where both individuals were virgins when they got married. I was looking for role models. In my search I heard answers like "I've heard of this one couple...." but no one could actually connect me with real live people. This was a bit scary because I kind of felt like we were going where no one has gone before.

I do believe that part of the problem is an issue of support. Many same-sex couples don't receive the same level of support their their heterosexual counterparts do. Our relationships aren't valued and often face a lot of opposition. Sometimes it feels as if people rejoice when our relationships fail.

I know of one guy who told me about his dating experience as a teen. He was dating a guy but he was not out to his family or to many in his community. Therefore when he and his boyfriend were together they wouldn't go out in public but rather spent a lot of time just the two of them hanging out in his attic. Spending almost all of their time alone together with hormones raging it was no wonder they couldn't wait to have sex until they were married.

So does sex happen before marriage? Yes. Does it ruin a person forever? No. The church's emphasis on virginity is often unhelpful. Sex happens sometimes even when we didn't intend for it to. However we are not limited by our pasts. That is definitely an idea that I believe comes through clear in the gospel. We can always choose from this point on to save sex for marriage.

Waiting to have sex until marriage is possible. Don't let anyone tell you that it isn't. I know it's rare in the gay community but there are some of us who are waiting or have waited until marriage. Dave and I did manage to wait and so far things are going good. We've only been married 3 months so I guess time will tell. We are venturing out in faith trusting that God knows what's best for us.

W: Thanks Shane for sharing your thoughts. Your story and your experience of working through the dating, engagement and marriage journey with high value accorded to sexual purity is one that needs to be heard. And I hope that we will meet some folks in the comment section who will give voice to their convictions and values on this particular question. I think it is far too easy for the Christian community to make assumptions about sexual minorities not having high moral standards around their sexual behaviour. Your story demonstrates that such assumptions need to be re-examined.

-WG