Pippin

So I’ve been resisting writing this post since the end of my sabbatical two and a half years ago. But given the last seven lengthy, rather dense posts, I thought this was the perfect opportunity to share it. Growing up we weren’t allowed to have pets. For a brief period we had a kitten named Tiger who my oldest sister had rescued from the ditch where he’d been tossed out the window of a passing car. We fed Tiger with an eye-dropper. He became the cutest little tabby you could imagine. He would be so excited to see us pull into the driveway at the end of the day that he would jump at the car tires ….. and one day my mother ran over him. That was the end of my short-lived but loving experience with a pet.

A few years ago, my youngest daughter begged and begged for a pet. I decided that fish would be a good place to begin. So we bought a tank and filled it with three goldfish named Shrek, Fiona and Donkey. Who knew goldfish could poop so much?? And of course, cleaning the tank fell to me. Donkey died pretty quickly and Fiona not long after. But Shrek hung on for what seemed like forever. Eating and pooping and not much else. When you think about, not really much of a pet to interact with.

The summer I was on sabbatical, I had enough breathing space to really consider if maybe our family was ready for a pet. The kids were a bit older and a bit more independent …. So the thought of bringing another dependent into the family didn’t seem so overwhelming. A family I’d stayed with during the summer one year in university had a little teacup terrier – and I remembered what a delightful little pup that dog was. And so, knowing I’d have a few weeks off yet before heading back to the office, we took the plunge. We got a little Yorkie puppy named Pippin.
Who knew a dog could have such an impact on a busy family of five. All the dog owners are, at this point, nodding their heads in agreement. All the non-dog owners have probably already stopped reading.



Pippin probably isn’t the smartest dog going. But in a funny way, that gives me permission to not always be at the top of my game. But Pippen is an absolute model of forgiveness.... usually. He loves unconditionally. He is always excited to greet us. He wants to hang out with us. When I work from home his favourite place is to curl up right beside me – somehow feeling reassured by my presence and offering me a wee bit of companionship.

I say Pippin is the model of forgiveness and unconditional love …. usually ….. because I’ve experienced something with Pippin that God has been using to reveal some stuff to me. A dog in a home and in a family knows who their leader is – it gets established early on – and in our case it was me. This was probably because I was the one that was home with Pippen that first month. So Pippin and I have a special bond. But …. I am also the only one in our family of five who is on the road to the degree that I am. This past year alone I’ve been gone for 2 weeks, a week, 10 days etc. at a time. Now when I come home, Pippin is beside himself with excitement to see me. But then he gives me the cold shoulder for a day or two or three depending on how long I’ve been away.

As I’ve reflected on this, it seems that Pippin is this living expression of dealing with perceived rejection. When Pippin gives me the cold shoulder it seems less about him holding a grudge and more just about his reticence to trust that I’m going to stick around and be a consistent presence in his life. After a few days, he begins to trust again that I’m not going to go away.

As I’ve navigated these transitions with my little puppy, God seems to be using it to remind me to trust him, to bring my perceptions of rejection to him, to snuggle up beside him and allow him to love me. Not only that, as I rub Pippin’s belly (his most favourite thing in the whole world) and I chuckle to myself at the ways he has completely wormed his way into my heart, I glimpse the ways that I am lovable to my Father. Pippin’s attempts at giving the cold shoulder treatment are short-lived and I can be patient through them. I know that in a day or two, he’ll find his way back to snuggle up beside me – where he and I will both experience the joy and contentment of being together and being loved. Perhaps because my relationship with my little pup is non-verbal, most of our time together is simply about being present with each other. And this has been a rich and deep metaphor for me of the security and joy of Emmanuel, God present with me. Through this little furball expression of God’s creation, I’ve found a new window into God’s heart. And it makes me smile.

Do you have a pet? What have they taught you about God's heart toward you?

-WG

Disputable Matter? Final part 7

In the midst of all the multi-faceted layers of diversity we have explored, I find it curious that the benefits of applying Paul’s guidelines in Romans 14 are not applied more widely to the question of covenanted same-sex unions. The reality is that there is diversity in perspective on this matter in our families, our friendships, our congregations, our Christian organizations, and our denominations. This diversity is apparent in the midst of our commitments to Christ and to Scripture. This diversity is experienced among those who demonstrate the good fruit of faith, spiritual growth and service. It seems to me that risking to humble ourselves to relate to one another across our differences opens much more opportunity to live in the way of Jesus together than perpetuating enmity, judgment and accusation ever could.

We in the body of Christ have learned how to extend humility and grace to one another in our disagreements about many issues. This learning has often come through seasons of great enmity, pain, and profound tarnishing of the witness of a unified church. After so many seasons of church history recording the stench of our enmity, surely we could learn to offer one another the kind of spaciousness Paul admonishes us to nurture in Romans 14. We are learning to do this well in our interactions around the sacraments or women in ministry. But we're also being stretched in matters like our use of financial resources, alcohol consumption, divorce and remarriage, reproductive technology, care for the environment, creation and science, gluttony, and strictness on prohibitions related to abortion. In some of these matters, there is disagreement among Christians regarding what is or isn’t sinful. Some of these matters are difficult and complex and only impact a minority of people. Some impact a larger majority and are essentially ignored or rarely discussed. Some impact many of us but we avoid conflict over it. We have much to learn yet in this arena of difference and disagreement.

Some have asked the question whether everything is a disputable matter. Personally, I do not hold this view, though I know some do. I do think that we need to be ready to consider particular exceptions to certain prohibitions. Dietrich Bonhoeffer being part of a plot to assassinate Hitler is an example of an exception to the command to not murder. I don’t, however, see the good fruit of faith in Christ, regard for the Scriptures, and growth in discipleship among those who are open to and active in murdering others. For me, it is this reality of good fruit demonstrated in the lives of believers who come to different conclusions as a matter of conscience on a particular question that weighs whether something might be viewed as a disputable matter.

Others have wondered about how a matter ought to be taught in the context of a community where the issue is viewed as a disputable matter. I’ve heard the example given of one Sunday a preacher promotes a particular view of a subject, then the next Sunday a different speaker contradicts the first speaker. The question is then raised how a community can possibly navigate such confusing and contradictory messages. There is the sense that “both can’t be right” and therefore, “one has to be right making the other wrong”. The whole point Paul makes, however, is that people need to live consistently with their conscience – and that their consciences will engage the matter differently.

So, when teaching on such a matter, my suggestion is that the primary focus be to equip people to discern, to understand the principles of biblical interpretation, walk in step with the Holy Spirit, weigh their own experience, think deeply and participate in the discernment of others in community. Teaching should prepare people to wrestle with the challenges and questions of the matter in Scriptural reflection, allowing Scripture to form and shape them, through prayerful contemplation, inviting silence and solitude and disciplines like fasting to deepen their prayer life, and an overall commitment to grow to maturity in faithfulness, obedience, worship, and service to others. Teaching should empower people to move from the house of fear to the house of love. As these foundations are laid, then any disputable matter can be explored through the various perspectives held by Christian community. People then need to own what their conscience, their beliefs and values are directing them to in terms of their own convictions. Teaching then encourages people to live in alignment and faithful commitment to their convictions while interacting with those who differ from them with the postures of humility, generosity, and graciousness as an essential part of their spiritual formation.

I am well aware that such a style of teaching differs from the model in which the leader presents the truth and the followers absorb it. This mode of teaching invites interaction, it invites individuals to wrestle with the tension between their individual autonomy and needing to own what they believe and the call into mutual submission in community. In an age where cynicism is high and people are leaving institutionalized religion behind, I believe this model of teaching holds out hope of reengaging people in the quest for faith. Many do not want to be told the answer, they want to be invited into the conversation of seeking what is life-giving, truthful and consistent with the person and ministry of Jesus. By embracing the reality of disputable matters, not only on the question of covenanted same-sex relationships, but on many of the other complex dilemmas facing this generation in our context, and by inviting people to search out their conscience and convictions, we are inviting them into the story of God’s revelation. In the process, we can trust that the Holy Spirit is more than able to guide people rightly, to correct them when needed, to know the perfect timing of growth in their journeys. This kind of teaching connects to the desire for a journey that is real, that is travelled in spacious places marked by unconditional love rather than fear, threats or coercion. It does, however, require that the teachers and preachers among us let go of a lot of the control that we may be accustomed to holding in our western churches. If this control is relinquished as an expression of trust and dependence on the Holy Spirit, we can be confident that God will build his church through the lives of the individual disciples he loves.

It is not only the question of teaching that comes up in this conversation. There is also the question of leadership. How, in a context where this is viewed as disputable, are matters of leadership addressed? When you return to the text in Romans 14, Paul indicates that those whose consciences allow them less freedom in the matter are the weaker brothers and sisters and need to be treated in a manner that honours and protects their faith. Verses 14 & 15, “I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died."

It would seem this carries particular weight regarding the question of leadership. In contexts where this is viewed as disputable, where there are brothers and sisters who, on the basis of conscience and conviction, cannot accept covenanted same-sex relationships as blessed by God, they ought to be honoured in the question of leadership. To extend leadership to someone who your conscience and convictions tell you is not living consistently with God’s direction is a clear example of a stumbling block. For those who do believe such relationships are blessed by God, their act of love is to prefer their weaker brother or sister. This boundary is not about rejection or judgment, it is about submitting oneself to a community with a commitment to sacrificial love. Those who do not approve of same-sex relationships have the opportunity to extend sacrificial love as they humble themselves to listen for the ways God is at work in their partnered brothers and sisters as they worship and serve together. Those who affirm such relationships extend sacrificial love as they willingly choose to defer to those who do not on the question of offices of leadership like pastor or elder. This is the pain of love, in the midst of our diversity, at work. It is not a mere compromise. It is a choice to cultivate sacrificial love.

In my conversations with many gay Christians, I encounter a great capacity for graciousness and generosity. There is a willingness to honour those who disagree with their conviction that God will bless them in commitment to a life partner. They want to be a part of a worshipping community that has the spaciousness for open dialogue, respectful listening, an ability to disagree and still love one another. And they want to use their spiritual gifts, talents and abilities in service - even though this may not be in traditional leadership offices. For those who do feel particularly called to leadership office, there are opportunities within affirming church where their service isn’t a battleground – but simply an expression of their love for God and his people. Leadership in the church is about service and willingly laying our life down for the church.

These are challenging and in some ways very unsatisfactory responses. As a woman in ministry, there are places I am not welcome to share my gifts and calling. On one level, I can feel a sense of injustice about that. Sometimes, I feel grief about that. But I am called, in my vocation, to love the church. To love her where she is at, with all of her weaknesses. I am called to love her sacrificially. And that means I don’t barge in, I don’t demand, I don’t fight. It means I ask the Lord to enlarge patience and grace and generosity and humility in me. It means I serve where God opens a door – rather than banging my head against a door that is locked from the inside. It means I allow these inequities to spiritually form me in the likeness of Christ, who stripped himself of all privilege, who became a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief, despised and rejected. This is difficult. It is painful. But it is rich. It is the way of Christ.

I believe the difficult questions of leadership can be navigated where there is a corporate commitment to self-giving love, to humility, to honouring one another, to embracing the spiritual formation of suffering. This is not to say it will be easy. There will be clashes and conflict. We resist being incarnational people. We resist stripping ourselves of our rights and privileges. Our flesh rises up and demands recognition and affirmation. Forgiving again and again, humbling ourselves again and again is exhausting. Communities who take on these immense challenges can experience deep seasons of weariness. But in the midst of this weariness, God is at work shaping us and molding us into the likeness of his Son Jesus. For all of the challenge of navigating a disputable matter, it is a profoundly spiritually formational journey.

I am so grateful for the examples of experimental communities that are trying to live out the generosity, grace, and hospitality of diversity through wrestling through what it means to view covenanted same-sex relationships as a disputable matter. And while these experimental communities are understandably imperfect, they also demonstrate environments of love, humility, unity, bearing and forbearing with one another. I am hopeful that the church-at-large will be open to hearing and really engaging their stories – not as a cookie-cutter template, but as a glimpse of the kind of seeds that could be sown in their own context.

I also increasingly see families in which there is disagreement around this subject learning to go deeper than just “agreeing to disagree” and pressing in to the spiritual formation of learning to view this as a disputable matter. When we simply agree to disagree, we aren’t particularly held accountable for our internal judgments and assumptions of one another. However, when we seek to apply the principles Paul lays out in Romans 14, we are suddenly confronted with a profound call to maturity, to allowing God to convict us on the attitudes of our heart, and if we are willing to be made willing we will find ourselves enlarging in the postures of the Spirit.

Despite the possibility of benefit from learning to embrace the humility required to apply Romans 14 to such a complex and difficult question, it seems that more often than not there is a resistance to consider its application to the matter of covenanted same-sex relationships. Why is that?

Certainly, there is the fear of being a stench in the nostrils of a holy God. There is the fear of diminishing a high view of the authority of Scripture. There is the fear of opening the door to a moral relativism that will undermine determined and disciplined pursuit of holiness. There is the sense that the Bible cannot offer more than one potentially appropriate way to navigate discipleship in this area. There is the fear of creating a climate of confusion and chaos that will impact the vulnerable and weak. And there is the fear of further instability in the model of the nuclear family.

While we are called to fear God in Scripture, we do well to remember that such fear is that of reverence not fright. And when we look at many of the reasons we resist living in community with the understanding that among same-sex attracted people the question of covenanted same-sex relationships is a disputable matter, we realize that there is a lot of fright behind our resistance. But in our resistance we are withholding generosity for spaciousness to wrestle with God and we are, most often, conveniently doing so from a place of detached theoretical thinking.

What risking to live in the tensions of accepting such a question as a disputable matter offers is the space to live consistently with your conscience – something Scripture deems to be very significant. What risking to live in the tension of a disputable matter offers is the intrinsic spiritually formational nature of such a posture. We become enlarged in these places in our ability to set aside our own pride (which is often fueled by our own fears and insecurities) and embrace a new depth of humility. We become enlarged in our capacity to respond with graciousness to those with whom we disagree. We grow in learning to extend hospitality to the stranger. And we learn to extend a spirit of mutuality and honour to one another in the midst of our diversity.

What do you think smells more like Jesus: arrogant certainty or humble hospitality? A refusal to listen to the testimony of one who differs from you or an eagerness to see where God is at work and speaking through the one whose journey has taken them to a different place? A tightly held control to the literal letter of interpretation or a trust that the Spirit is alive and well and more than able to lead us, in our distinct contexts, into truth and righteousness in our personal lives and in our shared discipleship?

The reality is, if we demand uniformity on this question – a question that doesn’t even personally impact the majority – I believe we will miss the blessing God wants to extend to those who are willing to risk being humbled and enlarged in generosity and grace. In the midst of this, we are each called to search the Scriptures, to listen deeply to the Holy Spirit through prayer, fasting and times of silence and solitude, and to consider the good fruit in the lives of those disciples who are actually living in the reality of these questions. We must know WHY we believe what we believe and really own it. But we also need to take the time to hear why others believe what they believe. Because mysteriously and infuriatingly in the Body of Christ there are faithful disciples who are landing in different places with different convictions. And while this may threaten or anger us¸ we perhaps do well to remember that there are many, many differences in the Body of Christ in how we understand the journey of sanctification. Individual Christians already live out their sanctification very differently from one another. We already have unanswered questions. We already throw ourselves on the grace and mercy of Christ. And in the midst of our differences, we lay down our striving for the reality that it is only through grace that we have been saved through Jesus Christ our Lord.

But friends, let us not miss the opportunity to be shaped and formed into the likeness of Christ in the midst of our diversity. Let us not let fear be the prominent motivator in our wrestling as individuals, as families, as congregations, communities and denominations. Let us honour the mystery of the Spirit speaking to our individual consciences, to the larger community of faith, through Scripture primarily, experience, tradition and reason secondarily. And let us be committed to focus on nurturing safe and spacious places where people can explore and grow in faith in Jesus Christ. Because truly, everything else is secondary.

-WG

Disputable Matter? Part 6

When we look to the actual community of same-sex attracted and gay Christians, we see men and women committed to Christ, committed to engaging the Scriptures as God’s revelation to them, and committed to journeying as faithful disciples. And among them, we see the reality that this is a disputable matter.

There are those who believe that faithful discipleship means not acceding to or embracing the reality of a same-sex orientation and seeking to experience a redeemed ability to love and serve an opposite gender spouse. Some have gone on to be married and raise a family. Others have remained single. In these lives we see the courage of conviction and the discipline of stewarding desires. We see commitment to fidelity and to be chaste. We see good fruit.

There are other gay Christians who also exhibit good fruit – who have navigated their journey in a different way. We see among them those who sense no contradiction in Scripture to live honestly and authentically as someone who is persistently and predominantly attracted to their own gender yet live out their Scriptural convictions about behavior through an intentional commitment to celibate singleness. These brothers and sisters view their sense of their own sexual orientation differently. They may be comfortable identifying as gay as an authentic expression of what they believe will be their permanent experience this side of heaven. They consider that Scripture does not address the question of sexual orientation. Does this difference from the first group discount the good fruit of discipleship, maturity, service and love that is in their lives?

What about our gay brothers and sisters who fully believe that God’s love and grace is extended to them as they offer their lives to a same-sex partner as an act of self-giving love? What about the fruit of faith that enables them to believe that God’s love embraces and enfolds them as they journey with a partner? Shall we sit in the seat of God and declare that theirs is not legitimate faith? What about the ways these brothers and sisters share their faith in Christ with their friends and neighbours? Shall we count such witness as bad fruit? What about the commitment of these believers to work for justice for the poor, abused and oppressed in our society and world? Shall we consider such efforts to be not of Christ? What about the times of prayer, the faithful worship, the engagement with Scripture, the sharing of fellowship with other believers? Shall we consider this all counterfeit so that it fits our grid of understanding? What about those who commit to and practice fidelity and chasteness sexuality? Shall we assume this is deceptive?

Consider this discourse between Jesus and John in Mark chapter 9:

“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.

Those of us who do find ourselves in the heterosexual mainstream need to perhaps pause and consider that among same-sex attracted Christians, where there is such diversity in determining a course of discipleship, faithfulness and obedience, there is a movement to live out Paul’s guidelines on how to live together in a way that honours Christ and one another despite differences in conviction and conscience. There are friendships in which space is given to live according to one’s conscience, where judgment is withheld, where instead of a spirit of contempt there is a spirit of humility, listening and caring for one another.

Having had the opportunity to be present and worship in such a gathering of same-sex attracted believers, I can attest to the beauty of such unity in diversity. There is a beauty of preferring the other. There is an awareness of the need to resist the natural pharisaical spirit that so easily arises within us. There is freedom to encourage one another to stay true to our convictions – even when they differ from ours – because we most want our friends to live congruent lives in commitment to Christ. Words are spoken with care. Feelings are considered. Sensitivity is a regular discipline. In such space there is an astounding atmosphere of love and acceptance. Not because “anything goes” but rather because people understand that every individual has been on a journey to wrestle with God. And there is a unified commitment to truly not be a stumbling block to one another. There is perhaps a keen awareness of the quote, “Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle.” Until one has experienced rejection, alienation, inequity, or injustice such a quote may seem merely sentimental. But when, collectively, a group of people gather who share similar difficult experiences, there is a capacity for grace in the midst of difference because there is a keen awareness that the battle is real and difficult.

Now of course, such unity in diversity isn’t a perfect or ideal experience all the time. In such a space of living the reality of a disputable matter, there are inevitably those who do not think they could be wrong, who do try to prosyletize others to their position. There are those who are wounded or immature who do not yet have the capacity to follow Paul’s guidelines. There is still conflict, there are still moments when shalom is interrupted or broken. But even with all of this, there is a larger picture of what unity and peace and unconditional love can look like when we live out Romans 14 in the midst of our very significant disagreements.

The great irony I see is that same-sex attracted Christians are living out this challenging experiment while many straight Christians are unwilling to even consider it. A brief look at any Christian blog that brings up the subject of homosexuality, and you will quickly see the many straight Christians who are certain and clear not only in their own convictions but in their judgment and contempt towards those who differ from them. All of this is based on an absence of personal application to this particular question.

One has to wonder if the process of actually wrestling with a particular disputed question personally is the foundation from which you can internalize Paul’s teaching in Romans 14. For when you get on your knees at the side of your bed night after night pleading with God to take away your same-sex attractions, you experience a solidarity with others who have had the same experience that those who have not can never truly enter. When you do the hard work of processing fear and shame related to your sense of being different in your sexuality or sense of gender – there is again a sense of solidarity. When you face the potential rejection of family, friends and church by coming to the point when you need to honestly speak about the reality of experiencing same-sex attraction ….. when you search through Scripture to try to understand how God really, truly feels about you ….. when you wrestle to try to make sense of the longing you feel for love and family and the story of Scripture that doesn’t hold a one-to-one model for you ….. you feel an empathy and closeness for whoever else has had to walk that road. And so even if and when you come to different conclusions in the midst of genuine desire to follow God and live a faithful life, there is a sense of connection, there is a sense of understanding, there is a sense of not wanting to make the other’s journey any more difficult than it has already been. And out of this very real and personal place arises the kind of mutuality and preference for the other that Paul speaks of. And the truth is straight people will never be able to really enter that space – because we have really never wrestled in those deep personal places.

It is true that there can be a depth of divide between same-sex attracted Christians. This is particularly true between people who feel deeply convicted that any expression of same-sex love arising out of what they would consider to be a dis-ordered desire is an affront to the nature of God and those who view homosexuality as a natural variant and a unique opportunity to express love and family in a different way.

For those who view same-sex attraction as a misrepresentation of God's created order, they may prioritize their understanding of the ontological nature of God. In the reality and calling to be image-bearers of God, such believers feel that any expression of their same-sex desire would be a rebellion against such a calling. In their understanding, the complementarity of male and female are an intrinsic aspect of the image of God that humans are to represent. Therefore, any same-sex sexual intimacy contradicts this. They believe that it is more important for them to rightly image God than to experience personal fulfillment in the expression of their desires.

For those who do not view same-sex attraction as fundamentally dis-ordered, the question that arises can be the perceived arbitrariness of this prohibition in light of our understanding today of same-sex orientation and the model of Christian love and fidelity that gay couples share. God, they may describe, is a loving Father who when asked for a loaf of bread does not give a stone. He plays no favourites and he does not make arbitrary rules that deprive his children of love, relationship and family. In particular, there may be deep reflection on the essential relational aspect of God’s character and the ways in which we are created for relationship.

Clearly, these are significant differences in perspective among same-sex attracted believers, but even here, where there is humility and an absence of fear, a sense of understanding and care for one another can emerge. And this is demonstrated in many humble and mature friendships that I have had the privilege of observing and being present with.

In part 7, we will look seek to bring some conclusions together on this multi-part series on the application of disputable matter principles to the question of covenanted same-sex relationships.

-WG

Disputable Matter? Part 5

When we look at the issues that Paul raises as disputable matters in both the book of Romans and his first letter to the Corinthian church, it can be easy to consider the matter of eating meat previously sacrificed to idols or the appropriate day for worship to be fairly benign issues. When we then raise the question of applying the kind of principles Paul lays out in these texts to a question like covenanted same-sex relationships – it can seem like we are shifting to a much more significant matter. This, in and of itself, can cause people to offer a knee-jerk reaction like, “of course homosexual behavior cannot be a disputable matter.” But perhaps we do well to reflect on the reality that for Paul’s readers, particularly those who were of Jewish background, the food you put in your mouth was directly tied to your commitment to your faith. These individuals had grown up keeping kosher – butchering in just the right way, observing dietary restrictions associated with feasts and festivals like Passover, regular fasting etc. And they had grown up hearing the stories of the Old Testament Scriptures that make no small matter about avoiding idolatry. There are no positive references in Scripture to association with idolatry. The Jewish people had endured extreme punishment through exile and the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem because of their embrace of the idolatry of the Caananite nations. The idea of eating meat that was not kosher and likely associated with idol worship…. I think we cannot truly imagine the degree to which this would have been an anathema to his Jewish readers. On the flip side, the Gentile believers likely had limited ability to understand what the big deal was for their Jewish comrades. Jesus had set them free from the law, Peter had the vision, the church council in Jerusalem had told them to simply stay away from sexual immorality and eating meat with blood in it – and this meat was well roasted with no blood to be seen. There was a very distinct difference in background, expectation and experience between the believers. But on these matters, notice that Paul’s concern is not with the question, “What is the right interpretation? What is the clear answer?” Rather, Paul’s focus is acknowledging the diversity and asking the question, “How now shall we live together?” Paul doesn’t even attempt to pull them together into a uniform position on the matter. He wants them to prayerfully consider how they will relate to one another, how they will nurture an environment in which each person could make decisions according to their conscience. His biggest concern is to help the believers find a way to experience unity in their diversity. In many contemporary experiences in dealing with a disputable matter, there are two common realities. First, there can be the sense that there are both positive and prohibitive texts addressing aspects of the issue. Secondly, the issue personally impacts the majority of people in the community. We see this with the role of women in ministry, the use of our financial resources, the consumption of alcohol or Sunday observance. The challenge in this particular question of covenanted same-sex relationships is that firstly, there don’t seem to be positive textual references to such relationships. And secondly, this issue does not personally impact the majority of people. Rather, the majority of people have very strong feelings and opinions about a question that actually only personally impacts a small minority of us. On the first point, in many disputable matter conversations it would seem that Scripture itself suggests that there is more than one way of looking at things. But in addressing covenanted same-sex relationships, one may quickly hear the observation that every specific applicable text is negative in its tone. There is no positive example of same-sex sexual behavior in the Scriptures. Others, however, would take issue with this. They would look to close and intimate same-sex relationships in the narratives of Scripture, such as David and Jonathon, and Naomi and Ruth, as a positive reflection of the love that can be shared in a same-sex context. This can inevitably raise the ire of those who feel offended that a sexual innuendo is inferred on stories that they see as reflecting friendship and nothing more. However, we do well to remember that the reality of our same-sex attracted brothers and sisters is a greater question than a reductionistic sense of genitalized sexual behavior. Deep intimate love ought not be reduced to a physical climax of sensual pleasure. None-the-less, in raising narratives like David and Jonathon, the tensions of assumption and innuendo can become a point of polarity and mistrust. What may be more helpful than arguing the unanswerable question of whether there was any physical intimacy shared in these relationships that could be understood to be sexual, is the consideration that these stories do illustrate that deep and intimate love between people of the same sex is not only not inherently abhorrent to God, but seems to be pleasing to God. The weight of this comes when we consider that for those who are same-sex oriented, their longing for a covenanted relationship is much more multi-faceted than a reductionistic view of erotic behavior. Same-sex oriented persons feel that they would be completed and complemented by someone of their own gender. They look to both give to and receive from a partner spiritual, emotional, psychological, and physical (practical) support and care. Genital sexual activity is not likely to be the sole or highest priority in the relationship, any more than it is in a heterosexual relationship. (And where this is the sole or highest priority, the relationship carries a superficial shallowness that will not be sustainable in the long run – and fails to bear the depth of covenant that God calls his people to.) When people are asked to really explain WHY they believe what they believe about what the Scripture says about covenanted same-sex relationships, many stammer and struggle to really know what to articulate. A good number will simply say, “the bible is clear”, “this is what I’ve always been taught”, “I just know it’s wrong” or inversely “I just know it’s right”. It is not uncommon to encounter people with very strong views who really haven’t done their homework to wrestle with Scripture and the variety of thought arising in the Christian community. Sometimes there can be a tone that suggests that any deviation from heteronormative tradition is automatically suspect, and if it is reviewed, it is done so with a mind to refute and defeat. For example, Albert Mohler, in referring to Joel Osteen’s interview with Piers Morgan, wrote in his blog last month, “To his credit, Osteen did answer his question, and by staking his position on the Bible’s teaching that homosexual acts are sinful, he took the only road available to anyone with any substantial commitment to the truthfulness of the Bible.” The assumption Mohler makes is that anyone who disagrees with his position lacks a “substantial commitment to the truthfulness of the Bible.” Not only is this an audacious statement to make coming dangerously close to assuming a knowledge that only God is privy to, it also completely discounts the testimonies of faith of anyone holding a different position. There can be a very real tone of accusation that accompanies risking to search and wrestle outside the shared understanding of one’s family, congregation or denomination on this question. It can be very hard to address one’s own internal emotions in the knowledge that if you do you may be labeled one who has compromised, watered down the truth ….. that you will lead people astray, be responsible for people going to hell, and used as a tool of Satan. One of the commenters on a blog that quoted from Mohler’s article had this to say, “The wages of ALL sin is death. This doesn’t mean we go execute them. We biblically principled Christians call them to repentance and love them regardless. We don’t, however, tell them that their sin is no sin at all. The delusional apostates are doing their best to make God into their own image.” What this commenter seems to fail to take into account is that those he calls “delusional apostates” are people created in God’s image, deeply and profoundly loved by him, who may indeed be growing and experiencing intimate and deep relationship with God having gratefully received reconciliation through the gift of grace given by Jesus Christ. In this kind of climate, it can feel very threatening to approach this question from a more generous posture, one that could explore whether there may be more than one faithful way for same-sex oriented believers to move forward in their journey of trust and obedience. Therefore, if there is going to be any fruitful conversation about whether the application of a disputable matter is appropriate, there needs to be a safe environment. Such a safe environment will be built on the premise that no one in the conversation is going to be written off as one who doesn’t care about the truthfulness of Scripture before the conversation even begins. Nor will the conversation be marked by an agenda-driven attempt to proselytize others by promoting their particular position. The question to be explored is not which position is correct – but rather, whether or not Paul’s admonishments concerning disputable matters might be applied to the question of the faithfulness of covenanted same-sex relationships. Where those from a variety of different perspectives can all extend the humility that says, “I could be wrong”, then the playing field is leveled and we can really focus on actually listening to one another. But what should we be listening for? Should we listen for whether the application of exegesis, hermeneutics, tradition, reason, or experience has been navigated with integrity? Correctly? In a way that we approve? I know both straight and same-sex attracted believers who have gone on to do graduate and post-graduate education to try to learn enough to develop an airtight case. The thing is, even at the highest levels of scholarship there is disagreement. Among even the most learned the outcome is disputed. So for those of us with significantly less education and research under our belts, perhaps looking for the airtight scholarly case won’t be the most effective route. Should we be listening for evidence that the person is being led by the Spirit? Absolutely. How do we do that? We are incredibly prone to self-deception. And while we seek to walk in step with the Holy Spirit, how do we rightly judge if someone else is being led by the Spirit, particularly when they are espousing thoughts and ideas with which we disagree. Let us not overestimate our ability to discern the Spirit when we are feeling particularly threatened. So, yes, we should and do listen for the Spirit’s presence in those who share differing perspectives – but we also must admit that our ability to discern rightly, given our own personal filters, may be less than optimal. Perhaps we listen for the evidence of good fruit. Jesus said, “By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” (Matthew 7:16-18) What fruit is proceeding from the lives of those who hold a different perspective on this question than we do? Do you see the fruits of the Spirit at work in them: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control? Do you see the fruit of service: do they feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, visit the sick and those in prison, clothe the naked? Do they look after widows and orphans? Do they touch the untouchables? What spiritual gifts do they demonstrate? Do they love their neighbor as themselves? Jesus said this was the fulfillment of all the law and the prophets. If there is good fruit in their lives what shall we conclude? Jesus says that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Now that is not to say that everyone who bears good fruit is correct about everything. But it may be something to reflect on as you consider whether your brother or sister who holds their convictions in good conscience ought to be treated in the manner Paul describes in Romans 14 rather than as someone who “at worst is deceived by the enemy – at best is deeply mistaken”. To recap, Paul says that when we encounter a genuine believer who disagrees with us we need to accept them, without quarreling, without viewing them with contempt, and without a judgmental attitude. He says not to put a stumbling block in a brother or sister’s way and to work towards peace and mutual edification. He challenges us to keep our convictions about disputable matters to ourselves and to live consistently with our consciences. Imagine if that actually became our posture towards one another in this contentious conversation at the intersection of faith and sexuality. Imagine if we didn’t back one another into a corner demanding to know where we stand on this question of covenanted same-sex relationships as the ultimate orthodoxy text – because we allowed people to keep their convictions between them and God as an expression of seeking to live in peace and with mutual edification. Imagine if we did not judge the heart’s motivation of those who land in a different place than we do. Imagine if we ceased showing contempt to those who disagree with us. Imagine if we stopped our quarreling. Imagine if we no longer put stumbling blocks in the way of those who were deeply wrestling with these questions and desperately needing some safe space to search out God’s heart and will for them. The reality is that this is a matter of conscience for those for whom this is actually a real life question. For the rest of us, the majority of us, this is an orthodoxy test, it is a measure of who is “in” and who is “out” of our comfortable group of people we agree with. Granted, for some it is a pastoral care concern about which they feel the need to teach and direct people in their care. But most who are taught what to think about this question will never face it as a personal question of discipleship. And for those who do need to struggle with this question personally, is being taught what to think really the most effective way to disciple and impart wisdom for the stewardship of desires and drives? And in particular, being taught by those who have never had to wrestle with a personal application of this question? I suggest that we reframe this question of disputable matter just a bit. The real question of whether it is disputable or not ought to be determined by those who are actually needing to make choices about the issue in question. If you consider Romans 14, Paul is not speaking to those who have some theoretical ideas about eating meat sacrificed to idols or eating only vegetables or who need to decide which day they ought to consider holy. Every single person reading Paul’s letter needed to eat and therefore needed to make decisions about what they would eat and what they would refrain from eating. And everyone reading the letter, who was committed to setting aside a day as holy, needed to make that decision. Paul’s admonishments weren’t for those who stood on the sidelines offering opinions and directives. It is very easy for a straight pastor to write a blog about covenanted same-sex relationships not being a disputable matter because of his belief that the Scripture is unequivocably clear on this matter. But ultimately, he is, from his theoretical perch, completely discounting the lives of same-sex attracted believers who are in the trenches wrestling out these questions with God, in the context of commitment to Christ, concern and care for the Scriptures, and a desire to live faithfully. We are called to a living, embodied faith. We are called to wrestle with the spirit of the law as we walk in intimate relationship with a personal God revealed to us through Jesus Christ. But when our wrestling comes from a theoretical place it is imperceptibly simple to begin to speak out of the letter of the law – because that is what we are prone to do. I am reminded of Jesus stark words to the privileged group of religious leaders, “They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” (Matthew 23:4) In part 6 we will look at how this question of disputable matter actually plays out among followers of Jesus who actually experience same-sex attraction.

-WG

Disputable Matter? Part 4

John Wesley is credited with the articulation of the quadrilateral for theological reflection made up of Scripture, experience, tradition and reason. It has been likened to a three legged stool in that Scripture is always seen as the foundation with the other three factors providing support. In this section of this disputable matter series, I want to look at the variety of ways we apply these supports to our theological reflections about covenanted same-sex relationships.

Wesley prioritized, after Scripture, the role of experience in theological reflection. The reason for this was that he saw that after Scripture, the lived reality of a theological concept was most effective in determining the truthfulness of the interpretation. When we consider the role of experience in the questions around covenanted same-sex unions there are a few categories to consider.

First of all, there is the experience of same-sex attracted Christians. Among these stories is significant diversity in experience. Some have, through a combination of Christian commitment, personal growth, therapy, ongoing accountability and support, sought to diminish and / or manage their experience of same-sex attraction. For those who have gone down this path, there may be a variety of outcomes. For some, there is an experience of mastery and stewardship in the area of attraction such that they find it manageable to refrain from same-sex sexual behavior. For some this occurs within the context of being committed in marriage to an opposite gender spouse. For some this occurs as they navigate life as a single person.

For others who have attempted this path, the outcome was very different. Their experience was not positive in terms of their experience of sexuality, their spiritual journey, their sense of self, and their ability to meet their legitimate needs for love and intimacy. Despite spiritual discipline, commitment to work through various personal issues, and submission to others for support and accountability, their same-sex attractions persisted or increased in intensity. They may have experienced a sense of losing connection with all sense of desire, a shutting down of their sense of self, their creativity, their longings and their hopes. And this may have come to a point of clearly being unsustainable for them. This may result in the process of disclosure and honesty about the reality of same-sex attraction - out of which some individuals will identify as gay and others will choose not to. This experience may be in the context of heterosexual marriage or singleness.

Other same-sex attracted Christians have journeyed along the path towards self-acceptance and authentic living as those with a predominant gay orientation. Some will have explored the path previously described before moving towards acceptance. Others will have avoided this path (perhaps because of hearing of others’ painful and negative experiences) and directly moved towards acceptance. For those who acknowledge the reality of their orientation, there are those who identify as gay, those who choose not to, those who disclose widely, and those who disclose minimally. Each choice will carry with it a different experience. Not only that, some will experience this degree of acceptance and authenticity as a single person, as a married person in a mixed-orientation marriage (ie. Married to an opposite gender spouse), or in partnership/marriage with someone of the same-sex. Each of these contexts will result in very different experience.

Not only that, gay Christians who embrace self-acceptance and honesty in regards to their same-sex attraction will also have different experiences depending on where they land theologically. Someone who experiences a same-sex partnership who is uncertain about where they land theologically will have a different experience than the person who has come to a confident place of expectation of God’s blessing on their relationship. Someone who is committed to celibate singleness due to theological convictions will have a different experience than the person who is single but still wrestling and uncertain about where they will land theologically and whether they will or will not experience a same-sex relationship in the future. There are also those who may feel clear about their theological position as calling them to abstain from same-sex sexual behavior, but are still exploring other possibilities for intimate relationships and experiences of family through options like living in community or a covenanted friendship.

In these three short paragraphs, we have described a great deal of complexity in the variety of experiences a same-sex attracted follower of Jesus may have. This may be further impacted by the question of whether an individual has grown up in a faith community or has come to faith later in life (potentially after having come out and / or establishing a long-term same-sex partnership).

Within the context of these different experiences, there will be a variety of ways that faith in Christ is expressed with different levels of growth and maturity and this will have been further influenced by personality, life experience, models, mentors, teaching, training, and motivation just to name a few.

Then in addition to the experiences of same-sex attracted followers of Jesus, there are the experiences of those within the heterosexual mainstream as they encounter the subject of homosexuality as influenced by teaching, ideology, social and family systems, and as they encounter the stories of same-sex attracted people (including all the variety of stories the experiences above entail in addition to stories of non-Christian gay people), and as they actually experience personal relationship with lgbtq people (who may fit any of the diverse experiences described).

Some straight people will have experienced negative teaching (in the church or otherwise) about gay people (not just theological reflections on the question of the appropriateness of same-sex sexual behavior). Others may have encountered positive teaching about gay people outside of the church, but negative teaching in the church. Still others (likely a minority) may have heard positive teaching about same-sex attracted people both inside the church and in other situations. Some will have come from social and family systems that viewed gay people negatively. Some will have come from social and family systems that viewed gay people positively. Some will have had their primary ideas about gay people formed by their faith community. Others will have had their ideas about gay people formed in their social context (particularly those who did not grow up in the church).
Some straight Christians will have heard only stories of same-sex attracted people who testify to experiencing change in their sexuality who are now heterosexually married. Others will have heard a variety of stories of different experiences. Some will have heard stories from their social and unchurched context but may not have really heard stories of the faith of gay Christians. Some will have an understanding that one story cannot be universally projected on all others. Others will expect that the stories they have heard will apply to anyone who is same-sex attracted.

Some straight Christians will have their own stories to recount on the basis of their personal relationships with sexual minorities. These stories will be influenced by the experience of the gay people they know. Some will have broad and diverse relationships. Others will have minimal or no personal relationships.

In many of the debates around homosexuality in the Christian community, there is minimal attention given to the tremendous diversity in experience that people bring to the table. Such experience affects the ability to be truly objective in exploring a topic that tends to be so emotionally charged. Rather than attempting to push experience to the background, it seems to me to be much more honest to be able to acknowledge the variety of experiences and to have conversation about the ways such experience influences our ability to reflect and discern God’s best way forward for same-sex oriented people.

For example, if one Christian has gay Christian friends who are partnered who demonstrate strong faith in Christ, commitment to worship, prayer, service, mission and justice, they will have a very different sense of experience than the Christian who does not personally know any gay people, let alone a gay Christian. After one film screening I hosted that profiles the lives of over 20 young gay Christians, one elderly man in the audience admitted that prior to seeing the film, he did not realize that there were young people who were solid in their faith and commitment to Jesus who also lived with the reality of a same-sex orientation. This may sound ludicrous to some, but the limitations of this man’s experience made him susceptible to caricatures and stereotypes about gay people.
It is not uncommon to hear lament in the church about the overemphasis on the role of experience in our current theological reflections. While this may be a legitimate concern, it is clear that if we are committed to listening to one another in the exploration of how to experience unity in our diversity, then we must take the time to humbly consider what experience influences the ways we reflect on these theological questions.

I hope that these paragraphs, while failing to be comprehensive, at least paint a picture of the tremendous diversity in experience that comes into the conversations about whether a disputable matter application might be appropriate for the question of covenanted same-sex relationships.

After the lens of experience, Wesley points to the role of tradition. It is a common statement to hear that one can’t argue with 2,000 years of church tradition that has consistently contraindicated same-sex sexual behavior. A high profile evangelical leader with whom I recently had lunch has often pointed to church tradition. As we were eating, he said to me that as he has actually looked at the writings throughout church history, there isn’t nearly as much said about homosexuality as he would have thought. While many point to the weight of church tradition, it is actually very few who have done the research in source material to determine the application of such historical tradition to our current context. One has to wonder if many point to church tradition as a simple means of reinforcing what they already believe to be true as a means of bolstering their position and preventing an open and generous conversation about the ways people are legitimately wrestling with God’s character revealed throughout the story of scripture.

It is interesting to note, however, that Wesley does not merely point to theologians, doctrine and dogma from the past when considering tradition. Rather, for Wesley tradition encompassed current theological influences as well as the beliefs and values of one’s family and church community. In our day and age, tradition therefore could be hugely diverse depending on what podcasts you listen to, blogs you read, radio and TV speakers you follow, books you gravitate to etc. The role of tradition may simply reinforce what one already thinks, broaden and challenge the sense of tradition one has held, or be so diverse as to foster tension, confusion and profound questions.

Finally, Wesley, ever the pragmatist, considered that our own ability to reason played an important role in our reflections on Scripture. To Wesley, our ability to reason offers a way of evaluating and perhaps challenging the assumptions of the tradition we encounter. While reason should never be elevated above Scripture, reason does help us to consider how to apply Scriptural interpretation in our current context. But here again, people reason in different ways depending on their wiring and bent, affinity for black and white or grey, talents, modes of processing etc. Not only that, but the reality is that it is very hard for most of us to think outside of the paradigm that we believe to be the right one.

Therefore, the ways we think are often limited by the boundaries of what we already believe to be true. My friend David Hayward, who blogs at nakedpastor.com said it this way, “The very lens we use to understand the truth are prescribed to perceive the truth we already believe. What is required is a radical revolutionary thinking outside the box. The lens itself, somehow, must be removed. Of course at first it will be rejected because it doesn’t fit the paradigm. But eventually, as the evidence mounts, the new paradigm will have to crash in upon us.” What this reminds us of is the inevitable reality that there will be tension between those who have an affinity to think outside their own paradigm and those who naturally resist such exploration. The ways we apply our thinking skills to the struggle to discern God’s will regarding the appropriateness of committed same-sex unions will be different for different people.

While there are other models that describe how we ought to tackle the task of theological reflection, Wesley’s quadrilateral gives a basic starting point from which we can begin to describe the layers of complex diversity that impact how people engage a question like the contours of faithful discipleship for same-sex attracted people. There are certainly those who simply don’t engage the question, assuming that they know the truth. However, in this determination, they have inevitably, though perhaps unconsciously, also been influenced by their view of homosexuality, their approach to Scripture, their experiences, their interaction with tradition, and their unique method of thinking.

In taking all this time to lay out the many ways that diversity is introduced into this conversation, I hope that this, in and of itself, will communicate legitimate need for us to consider if the current disagreements about gay marriage ought not to be considered as a disputable matter. To refuse to even consider this question would seem to discount the authentic theological reflections of those who may be coming from very different places. We are reminded in I Corinthians 12 that for the body of Christ to function faithfully and well, we need to embrace the different parts of the body. We are not all the same. We don’t all play the same role. We don’t all offer the same contribution. Paul says, “The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.”

Are we really prepared to say that those who have different views on homosexuality, different approaches to Scripture, different types of experience, tradition and reason are not part of the Body of Christ because we differ in how we view covenanted same-sex relationships? If these brothers and sisters confess Jesus as Lord, how can we cast them out? Consider these words, "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10: 9) If brothers and sisters share in the essentials of our faith, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, who are we to say they are not part of the Body?

To this point, we have spent much time describing the reality of diversity in the Body of Christ. This clearly has a huge implication for the consideration of whether covenanted same-sex relationships might be viewed as a disputable matter. However, in part 5 we will turn to the much harder task of seeking to determine whether this is, indeed, as disputable matter and why.

-WG

Disputable Matter? Part 3

When we consider the potential usefulness of viewing covenanted same-sex unions as a disputable matter in the Christian community, we must understand the diversity with which we approach and seek to interpret scripture. The sheer fact of such difference ought to motivate us to embody a posture of humility rather than self-righteous judgment of one another. However, more often than not, we knock one another over the head with our claims of superior exegesis and hermeneutics, assumptions about depth of commitment, motivations, and ability to rightly discern. Eugene Petersen says,

“We are fond of saying that the Bible has all the answers. And that is certainly correct. The text of the Bible sets us in a reality that is congruent with who we are as created beings in God’s image and what we are destined for in the purposes of Christ. But the Bible also has all the questions, many of them that we would just as soon were never asked of us, and some of which we will spend the rest of our lives doing our best to dodge…… As we personally participate in the Scripture-revealed world of the emphatically personal God, we not only have to be willing to accept the strangeness of this world – that it doesn’t fit our preconceptions or tastes – but also the staggering largeness of it. We find ourselves in a truly expanding universe that exceeds anything we learned…. Our imaginations have to be revamped to take in this large, immense world of God’s revelation in contrast to the small, cramped world of human “figuring out.” We learn to live, imagine, believe, love, converse in this immense and richly organic detailed world to which we are given access by our Old and New Testaments. “Biblical” does not mean cobbling texts together to prove or substantiate some dogma or practice that we have landed on. Rather it signals an opening up into what “no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, [but] what God…… has revealed to us through the spirit: (I Cor. 2:9-10)”

The imaginative largeness that Petersen speaks of can be a great challenge. But where it is lacking, it is very difficult to have a fruitful conversation about the potential of homosexuality being a disputable matter. As I encounter people in the church engaging the question of the appropriateness of gay partnerships, my general observation is that those who are open to or affirming of same-sex relationships give significant weight to the historical / cultural context. They are comfortable moving beyond “figuring things out” to consider the progressive revelation of God through the scope of Scripture and the ways that the Holy Spirit continues to reveal Jesus to us in our current context. Those who maintain a traditional understanding of heteronormative sexual intimacy, generally speaking, may view the application of cultural considerations as suspect or as an excuse to discount what they clearly see as prohibition. They would tend to point to the hermeneutical principle that states there is one single original interpretation though there may be multiple applications. Any serious interpreter of the Biblical text will be well acquainted with their own limitations. This means several things. First, we must recognize that any appeal to the authority of Scripture has the potential to be coloured by the limitations of our ability to interpret rightly the very authority we seek to call upon. When discussions focus on the authority, inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, it can become very easy to talk past one another when the assumption is “I care about the authority of Scripture and you don’t.” It can be unhelpful to wax eloquently about the inerrancy of Scripture without an accompanying acknowledgment that while Scripture may be inerrant, there are no inerrant interpreters of Scripture. We do well to remind ourselves that we see through a glass dimly and that no one has a perfect pipeline to the mind of God. Secondly, it is important to maintain an openness to engage with other traditions that may function with a different hermeneutical grid. No one tradition within the Christian community holds the monopoly on correct interpretation on every question. To only engage scholars and thinkers who agree with the presuppositions you bring to the text will, in the end, lead to an impoverished interpretive task. The third limitation we are called to explore is the way our own status and privilege may obscure the selfish and power-maintaining version we hold of God’s story. Richard Middleton and Brian Walsh make the observation that postmodern critics of the Biblical meta-narrative (overarching story) tend to see it as the "legitimation of the vested interests of those who have the power and authority to make such universal pronouncements.” For those of us who do find ourselves a part of the heterosexual mainstream, we must reflect on the potential influence our heteronormative assumptions may bring to the text. I often encounter ministry leaders who try to engage their reflections and subsequent position and policy statements by asking themselves how they would approach the subject if one of their children were gay. Even closer to home, is asking the question, “What if I were gay?” “If I were same-sex attracted, how would I wrestle with the full council of God as it relates to my life, my sense of personhood, my desire for love, companionship and family? How would I live in the tension of my own drive to overcome my aloneness and my desire to live in fidelity to the authority of Scripture as it reveals God’s character to me?” At the end of the day, those of us who navigate life’s journey in the comfort of the dominant experience of sexual identity will never fully know how we would answer that question. We cannot live inside someone else’s skin. We therefore can own no smugness in our certainty of how we would respond. That ought to remind us to engage this conversation of interpretation of specific texts with a spirit of humility and a willingness to listen well. It will perhaps prepare us to participate more generously in conversations exploring a disputable matter application. The following insights about good interpretive practice may be helpful to posture us in the place of humility as we encounter those whose interpretations differ than ours or who continue to live in the tension of some uncertainty on the specific question of the appropriateness of covenant same-sex partnerships. The interpretive journey must function in dependence on the leading, guiding and quickened discernment of the Holy Spirit. This means that those who wish to take seriously the message of the text for the manner in which they live and engage their world must learn the disciplines of walking in step with the Spirit. Interpretation, while rigorous and necessarily eliciting our best thinking, is not primarily an intellectual pursuit or culmination of our best talents, abilities and expertise. We primarily humble ourselves in dependence on the reality of the life of the Spirit within us guiding us into all truth. We do this even as we recognize that we see through a glass dimly, are prone to self-deception, and will not engage the Spirit with perfect clarity. Interpretation of any portion of the text must find its focus in the person of Christ. God’s story points to and climaxes in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This grand mystery energizes our Spirit-led imagination to ask of any text where Christ is seen. Martin Luther said, "If you will interpret well and securely, take Christ with you, for He is the man whom everything concerns." This presupposes, of course, that we have steeped ourselves in relationship with Jesus, his birth, life, death and resurrection, his words, his ministry, his commands. This Christo-centric focus illumines why it is that when people cite in the debates on homosexuality that ‘Jesus said nothing about homosexuality’ intense emotions flare up on all sides. For those who look to this as some level of evidence that this was not a priority issue for Jesus, it ought not to be viewed as a weak attempt to say, “this is no big deal”. Rather, consider that this individual may be truly seeking to ground themselves in the central focus of God’s story – the Incarnated, Reconciling Redeemer. And when others react to this statement with a seemingly ferocious defense that Jesus obviously knew and maintained consistency with the Levitical admonishments about male same-sex behaviour, it ought not to be seen merely as an inability to consider the weight of Jesus’ silence on the matter for same-sex attracted people. Rather, consider that this individual may be attempting to protect Jesus from what seems to them to be a misuse of his silence on a significant question. His silence alone, however, is clearly not the only issue in tension. In Jesus we see the pinnacle of God’s redemptive plan revealed through promise and God’s faithful love. This promise of redemption is a shared essential of our Christian faith. But to whom this promise extends is a point of contention. In the ministry of Jesus we see a Saviour who reaches, intentionally and consistently, to the margins. He talks and eats and heals and experiences solidarity with all the wrong people. His ministry, seen from this perspective, is all about inclusion. And surprisingly enough, sometimes that inclusion carries very little to no instruction about right living or avoiding sin or even the need for confession or repentance. Consider the story of the ten lepers found in Luke 17. Jesus encounters the lepers who cry out for his mercy and he tells them to head off to show themselves to the priest. This was the traditional way in which an individual with a skin disease could be proclaimed clean and re-integrated into life in the community. The text tells us that on the way they were cleansed. And the one leper who had no hope of reintegration into community, no matter how clean his skin was, returns to Jesus. He is a Samaritan. And Samaritans, after generations of feuding and alienation, are not allowed to enter the Temple. He realizes that his only hope is to return to the One who mysteriously has the power to physically heal him. It would seem that he intrinsically knows that his best hope at a new life is to return to Jesus. Indeed, Jesus’ claim is to be the new temple, the new place of reconciliation with God and the people of God. Jesus says to the leper, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.” Imagine that. I would have felt obliged to instruct him in the way of Jesus, wouldn’t you? I would have said something about sin, confession, holiness, prayer, reading the Scriptures, the coming of the Spirit to help him, the importance of being with a worshiping community, the need to get a good mentor or spiritual director, and the importance of justice, service and love. If this was the only time I had with him, I would have done my best to give him a crash course in living out a life in the way of Jesus. But Jesus doesn’t do this. He sends him on his way with an affirmation of his faith. Yet in other encounters, Jesus offers more instruction. Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more”. He tells the man let down through the roof by his friends that “his sins are forgiven”. He tells the Samaritan woman that “a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.” (John 4:23) When we are caught up in the story, we can worry less about dotting every “i” and crossing every “t” in terms of what Jesus’ formula for reconciliation is, and we engage the personal reality of our own sense of reconciliation with God as actualized in our faith in Christ and experience of the Holy Spirit. This frees us to rejoice and anticipate the reconciliation of those on the margins in our current context. In Jesus we also see what can seem to be a paradoxical relationship with the law. In Matthew 12: 1-8 we see fairly typical response of Jesus to a challenge from the teachers of the law. “At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." In Mark’s account Jesus says, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” In this text, Jesus models a discernment of the spirit of the law, not the letter. Such a response sings of a spaciousness in which God’s people, in light of their need, find mercy and provision in the place of rigid expectations of the law. Indeed, consideration of the words, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” is not inconsequential when considering a response to the reality of same-sex attracted brothers and sisters. We also read of Jesus’ high regard for the law. In Matthew 5: 17-18 Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” And then we also have Jesus’ summary of the law in Matthew 7: 11, 12 “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” And again in Matthew 22: 35-39 “One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."” For those who seek to be Christ-centered in their interpretive journey with Scripture, there may still be different emphases of the words and teaching of Jesus. A differing sense of Jesus’ priorities may influence the application of Scripture to their decision-making regarding the invitation to experience love and intimacy in a same-sex consummated covenant relationship. A great comfort in the interpretive quest, particularly for those who may feel limited in their training or understanding of specific hermeneutical tools, is the accessibility of the Bible’s central message. The Bible tells a story of a God who reconciles people into life-giving relationship with himself and is about the work of making all things marred by sin and brokenness right. This is understood to be the "Perspicuity of Scripture". This means that anyone who reads the Bible can understand its good news. The invitation of redemption is plain to see regardless of how much one understands or has studied how to best interpret the Bible. The challenge is when people take this idea of perspicuity and apply it much more broadly than the central message of redemption to include specific complex contextual questions. The result is the expectation that a plain, literal reading of the Scriptures will offer a clear answer to any question confronting a Christ-follower. This can be seen in the myriad of huffy blog comments left by Christians who insist, “The Bible is clear” and therefore refuse to listen, engage, extend respect, care or sensitivity to the Christian who questions this presumed clarity. A comment left this morning on one of our video clips featuring a gay Christian who is currently single but open to having a partner demonstrates this. The comenter said,“you are a reprobate! you have one foot in hell! you are not a christian! a real christian will shun you! it is a grave sin to even debate this. the bible is super clear on this! you Lots wives will all burn in hell forever! that is where this begins and ends! no debate none! None!” This expectation of perspicuity on all moral and ethical matters can be a cover for a refusal to engage the threatening process of confronting one’s assumptions or constructs in which we manipulate the text to exert power over others. It can also be a cover for what is akin to a sense of panic at the thought of questioning the system that holds our faith and confidence together. Such panic fails to see beyond oneself and is ultimately narcissistic. For those able to see beyond the reductionistic notion of perspicuity on all complex matters, one realizes the necessity in interpretation to take into account the context of the text. This context will consider the text in light of the full council of God (all of Scripture), the particular book in which it is found, the grammatical meaning of the specific words, and the historical context of the author and intended audience. Such attention to context will seek to prevent pulling specific phrases out of the larger frame of reference as is so often seen in proverbial proof-texting. It will also ensure that texts that are understood to reference homosexual behaviour will be considered in light of the redeeming, reconciling message of Scripture, the exegetical challenges of interpreting the notoriously difficult Greek works arsenekoiti and malakoi, and the cultural backdrop of the author and audience. Such careful consideration of contextual issues will quickly raise the reality of diverse understandings posited by different scholars, practitioners and pastors, and every day gay and lesbian followers of Jesus. We have considered the effect different ways of viewing homosexuality can impact people’s openness to considering same-sex unions a disputable matter in part 2. Here in part 3 we briefly looked at how people approach and engage scripture. In part 4 we want to look at the different ways people engage experience, tradition and reason to wrestle with the questions of faithful discipleship for same-sex attracted people.

-WG

Disputable Matter? Part 2

The reality is if we refuse to consider the matter of covenanted same-sex relationships to be disputable, we inevitably put ourselves in a position of discounting those with who we disagree despite their profession of faith in Christ and regard for the Scriptures. This is no small matter. Today, one cannot simply write off as a small, rebellious, renegade group of liberal revisionists, those who view covenanted same-sex relationships as a faithful option for gay disciples of Jesus. Rather, one is likely to find people, though perhaps quietly, holding this position in most evangelical congregations. And certainly, one will find people who feel uncertainty and tension in trying to sort out what they believe on this question. These are people who love Jesus, people who believe the bible is authoritative for their lives because it is God’s revelation to us, people who care about mission and sharing the gospel, people who value worship and spiritual disciplines, people who deeply wrestle with how to live out their own faithful discipleship in a complex and challenging world. It seems incredibly audacious to me that anyone would consider sitting in the seat of judgment regarding the veracity of faith of those who demonstrate good fruit in their lives. But if we cannot entertain a conversation that explores the potential of disputable matter, that is what we are doing. We are casting stones at our brothers and sisters.

Let us remember that exploring the disputable matter option is not giving up the convictions we hold to be true about same-sex relationships. It is holding them in a manner that acknowledges the reality that others in the body of Christ come to a different set of convictions based on their best wrestling with scripture. In considering the disputable matter option, we are submitting ourselves to a manner of engagement with those with whom we disagree that follows the model that the apostle Paul lays out for us in Romans 14. We are not saying our convictions are incorrect or inconsequential. We are simply acknowledging the mystery and paradox that comes when different people, with different experiences, different emphasis in tradition, theme and priority, discern convictions about a challenging topic differently. In doing so, we intentionally choose a humble posture.

The challenge is knowing how to hold one’s convictions with true conviction and fervor while at the same time humbly acknowledging the limitations of your ability to interpret scripture perfectly. One pastor who was trying to process these questions phrased it this way when considering those who held a different perspective than he did – he said, “at worst they are deeply deceived by the enemy ….. at best they are deeply mistaken.” What I didn’t hear him say is that he might be deceived by the enemy or mistaken. To contribute to a conversation on disputable matters is to acknowledge that despite having done your best to discern correctly, and despite deeply holding your convictions, you too could be the one who is wrong, but that you will move forward in congruence with your conscience with the kind of humility and grace that Paul advocates.

Part of the reason people may have such differing views on covenanted same-sex unions, is related to the different ways people view homosexuality.
Paul Egertson was a retired bishop in the Lutheran Church in the U.S and also the father of a gay son. In an article he wrote for other parents, he presented four common ways in which homosexuality is viewed within different parts of the Christian community.

Some will view the experience of same-sex attraction as a “conscious and defiant rebellion against the laws of God and nature.” With this understanding, the seemingly obvious Christian response is to call people to repentance. While a same-sex attracted person might wonder how they can repent from a feeling, those who hold this view may insist that this is a matter of repentance and that with repentance will come deliverance. When probed as to the nature of this deliverance, some with little experience may suggest an emergence of heterosexual desire. Others may suggest a diminishment of same-sex attraction. However, since it is viewed as against God’s nature, sanctification would work towards the eradication of same-sex attraction even when there is a recognition that this may not be a realistic outcome for some people. God’s redeeming work of regeneration is seen to be a return to the perfect created order even though this transformation may be incomplete this side of heaven.

The disconnect comes when a same-sex attracted person recounts their narrative of prayer, repentance, discipline, therapy etc. with little to no change in their experience of same-sex attraction. Within this view, the only logical response is to claim a lack of correct technique or knowledge, motivation or discipline. This kind of response, however, is deeply hurtful and discouraging to the one who has prayed, fasted, searched the Scriptures and desperately wanted to experience transformation.

Another common understanding that I come across is the comparison between homosexuality and conditions like alcoholism or eating disorders. In this view, it may then be assumed that such behavior inevitably leads to addiction that can only be dealt with through abstinence and sobriety. For the same-sex attracted person this translated to the injunction of celibacy.

The disconnect comes when people consider how Scripture addresses singleness. Clearly, there is high regard given by Jesus and the apostle Paul to the state of singleness. In fact it could be argued that this is the preferred state. However, there is also a sense of making a way for those for whom singleness is too heavy a burden. Following Jesus’ words on divorce and remarriage, “The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Then in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul says, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

Given the grace extended, some struggle with imposing celibate singleness on all persons who experience persistent and predominant same-sex attraction without regard for their legitimate needs for companionship and family. The limited number of texts that deal with same-sex sexual behavior do not describe long term loving family situations but rather focus specifically on sexual behavior. This raises a dilemma for many.

For those who personally know gay people these first two explanations may seem to fall short of the ways they have encountered their friends and loved ones. They know it isn’t as simple as repenting of a non-volitional feeling. They recognize that the experience of same-sex attraction is intrinsically different than the challenges that addictions raise. As they wrestle with Scripture, however, they do not see specific guidance related to the actual reality of experiencing same-sex attraction. While there are general admonitions related to temptation, it is a point of contention whether same-sex attraction itself should be considered a temptation or whether there are aspects of same-sex attraction (as with opposite¬-sex attraction) that can lead to temptation. Then as they reflect on the inconclusiveness of science regarding the causation question, the reality that research in the area of orientation change reports marginal positive result, and the seemingly healthy and normal longings for intimacy, belonging, companionship and family they encounter in their same-sex attracted friends, they seek to land on an understanding of homosexuality that seems to bring these realities together.

For some then, homosexuality would be seen as a result of the fall into sin, outside of God’s original design for humanity, but not outside of his grace. Sometimes the language of brokenness is utilized as a way of expressing that this experience of sexuality, though not volitional, and not placing culpability on the affected individual, is a reality in our fallen world. Those who adopt such a view are often quick to call for compassion and to see same-sex attraction as a ‘cross to bear’ along with other innocent victims who suffer the fallout of sin’s presence through less than desirable conditions. In wrestling through the possible options for faithful discipleship for the same-sex oriented person, one of the images that may be described is that of the variety of ways we experience and extend grace and improvisation to those experiencing other such conditions. For example, God gave us vocal chords, throat and mouth with which to verbally communicate. For those who are deaf, however, we readily make the accommodation of communicating with one’s hands. For those who are paralyzed, we built wheelchairs. For those who grieve infertility, we support fertility interventions or adoption. The idea, therefore, is to seek an extension of grace that will make life as full as possible given this particular ‘thorn in the flesh’ this side of heaven. Some will explore options like covenantal but non-sexual friendships, living in intentional community, fostering children, being a spiritual mentor or parent to others. Some will support committed same-sex unions as an extension of such grace.

The disconnect in this view is that it seems to carry an inherent sense of condescension in how gay persons are viewed. Thechallenge of equity raises the question of such a view perpetuating an ‘us and them’ mentality or the invisible line that places sexual and gender minorities in a second class category. Is a person less than anyone else due to a reality they did not choose? The trajectory of scripture breaks down this kind of favoritism and invites us to view one another as Image-bearers of God and equally valuable. “My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.” (James 2:1, 8, 9)

Perhaps particularly in light of this consideration of equity, some view homosexuality as “one of the varieties of nature, one of those delightful differences that regularly appear in counterpoint to the ordinary norm.” Here a parallel may be drawn to any number of minority conditions like left-handedness (which is my reality) or eyes of two different colours (which is my sister’s reality). Egerton reminds us that such minority conditions were often viewed in the past as deviant. My mom, who started out left-handed, had her hand tied behind her back as a child to train her to be right-handed. With her it worked – she has some of the most beautiful handwriting I’ve ever seen. She made a few feeble attempts to repeat the training process with me – but to no avail. Today I’m as left-handed as can be …. Well unless I’m playing sports – and then I’m right-handed …. Goes to show that I truly am a walking contradiction.

Over time, minority conditions assumed to be deviant or even evil have often been gradually accepted as a simply natural variation – and indeed one that can be delightful, creative, useful – and should be embraced and celebrated. Some suggest this is the appropriate way to view the reality of homosexuality. For a minority of people this is their reality, they bring a unique perspective to the table as they view people and relationships from a different lens than most, and this is a valued and special contribution.

Even in describing these four different understandings of homosexuality, I am mindful that there will be individuals who protest that they do not fit into one of these particular descriptions. For myself, I find that I’m at a place where my view, at this point in time, is a bit of a hybrid. How we view homosexuality is impacted by so many different factors, it would be an impossible task to describe points on a continuum that neatly fit everyone.

Egertson, himself, concludes his article by saying, “Unfortunately, there are no experts right now who can answer our questions or tell us which of the above options will turn out to be true. All we can do is digest the best information available from scientific research and search the Scriptures for what they do and don't say, praying that the Spirit will lead us into all truth. In the meantime, we all walk by faith and run with risk. Each of us will place our own bet and be responsible for it. As for me and my house, we're putting our money on the *celebration* line. We would rather err on the side of helping hurting people than on the side of hurting helpless people. May God have mercy on us.”

Clearly, the discrepancy between the first understanding and its call to repentance and the final understanding and its call to celebration is immense. Not everyone is prepared to share Egertson’s conclusions on the inconclusiveness of the question. Rather, some will consider themselves to be the experts who know the only true manner in which to view this matter. Such persons would likely be loath to participate in the disputable matter conversation.

But it isn’t just the way we view homosexuality that makes it difficult to come together to discern the question of disputable matter. It is also the manner in which we view the Bible and its authority which makes it difficult to come together
to discuss this question. And I will explore this in Part 3.

-WG