I could, for instance, say to the students that the elder had shared with them WHAT the church’s leadership believed – and I could encourage them to go and have conversation with the elders about WHY they believe that. I could challenge both the elders and the students to engage in dialogue together about WHY we think and believe what we do about the manner in which a same-sex oriented Christian should steward their relationships and sexuality. I could say to these students that each one of them needs to wrestle with Scripture, through prayer, reason, experience and in conversation with others in the Christian community to be able to own for themselves what they believe and why they believe it. I could talk to them about the fact that while WHAT we believe is important, it is also of critical importance to consider HOW we believe what we believe. That is, how do we convey our beliefs and values with others, including others who may disagree with us? And how can we do that in a manner that reflects the love of Christ for all people?
What was so refreshing about this particular talk was that our time together wasn’t sucked up by promoting, defending or refuting a particular theological position. We could simply focus on the reality that each one of us needs to grow in the maturity that owns what we truly believe. We can’t just inherit our beliefs – we need to really pray and think things through. We could focus on how a follower of Jesus can navigate the reality of complexity on this topic in a posture of humility and hospitality. And I could encourage these students to consider that asking questions isn’t a sign of a weak faith – but rather a sign of a faith willing to trust God to lead, guide and provide discernment.
The majority of our time together that evening was spent going through the questions that the students could anonymously text in. It was clear from the questions that the perspectives and levels of experience and use of language were very diverse in this group. I was able to encourage these students to learn the simple but important adage of entering dialogue ~ “This is what I believe ….. but I could be wrong….. tell me about what you believe.” And I could emphasize that the gospel is not ultimately about right belief ~ it is ultimately about right relationship: with God and with each other.
This generous experience with a group of students creates an interesting backdrop to the reminder that the Day of Dialogue is fast approaching (April 19). This initiative was formed in response to the GLSEN (gay, lesbian, straight education network) Day of Silence (April 20). The Day of Silence invites students to choose to refrain from speaking for a day as an act of solidarity with those whose voices are muted by unsafe environments of bullying and homophobia. Because this was perceived to be part of advancing an agenda of normalizing homosexuality in our society, the Day of Dialogue (originally called the Day of Truth) challenged Christian students to share with other students the traditional Biblical perspective that marriage is to be between one man and one woman and that there was hope for change for those who were same-sex attracted. Sponsorship of the Day of Truth/Dialogue has changed hands a few times from the Alliance Defense Fund to Exodus and now to Focus on the Family. The message has evolved slightly. This year’s cards (that students can download to hand out to other students) communicate this message:
I am giving you this card as a reminder that God cares about every single student in this school, including you—and to invite you to have a conversation about this concept. He knows your name, and He cares about your sexuality, your relationships and your soul. I believe Jesus Christ came to this earth to give his life for people like you and me. I believe He loves every person regardless of how they identify. That’s why as a Christian—someone who follows Jesus—I will stand up for students around me being teased, bullied or harmed for any reason. Because God cares so much about us, I also believe that He designed the best plan for our sexuality and relationships. And that He created every one of us, male and female, so that we could enjoy an intimate relationship with Him. Let’s talk about it!
I’m glad to see an acknowledgment that there are students who are bullied and that the card communicates that Christian students should stand up for those being mistreated. I’m glad the card articulates that God loves people regardless of how they identify. There’s no question in my mind that the card has been toned down from previous years. This is a sobering reality to take note of when one stops to remember that last year a gay student came home from school after the Day of Dialogue and hung himself in his bedroom.
When you go to the topic list under the “Dig Deeper” tag on the Day of Dialogue website, you see the following article links: God’s Design for Sexuality; Sex: A Gift & Responsibility; Hope for Those who Struggle; Having Healthy Friendships; Why We Should Stick up for Others; Why Male and Female Matter; Who am I? Finding Eternal Significance.
The website also listed some conversation starters:
Does God really care about our sexuality and relationships?; What kind of advice does the Bible offer about this stuff – what does it say about the purpose of sex and God’s intention for it?; How is marriage reflected in God’s Word? How does the Bible present the idea of marriage as a spiritual picture? What is this important to think about?; What does it mean when the Bible says God made us in His own image, male and female?; How might masculinity and femininity reflect different things about God’s character?As I looked through these articles, there was a very consistent tone. The articles were friendly, positive, and encouraging. They also presented a very consistent paradigm – one that can be described as an ex-gay paradigm. Such a paradigm not only views same-sex sexual activity as sinful, but it also discourages an individual from identifying as LGBT. The personal stories in the articles were consistently of those who felt same-sex attraction, some of whom had been involved in same-sex relationships or sexual activity, who turned away from anything associated with homosexuality to focus on a primary identity in Christ. The articles also had a strong tone of differentiation in gender.
When you consider the predominance of one paradigm and the conversation starters that point towards a particular discussion, one has to wonder why it is called the Day of Dialogue. It seems to me it might be much more honest to simply call it the Day of Defense of Traditional Marriage, Ex-Gay Response to Homosexuality and Traditional Gender Roles.
What struck me about the website was that I didn’t really see any guidance for high school students to understand what dialogue really is. I didn’t see any acknowledgement that they would encounter people with different views. I didn’t see any help for students to engage in conversation in a way that was open, humble and able to navigate difference and disagreement. I didn’t see any direction on listening skills. I didn’t see any acknowledgment that students may encounter a gay Christian.
Most promoters of dialogue have an emphasis on relationships. They recognize that dialogue happens over time with the goal of transformational, authentic relationships. There is an openness and often an expectation that dialogue will change us (note: not change the other person). Dialogue breaks down isolation and alienation because there is a mutuality and an opportunity to both listen and to share.
In the Day of Dialogue materials, I did not see much, if any, emphasis on dialogue taking time, on it being about building relationships, on a willingness to suspend one’s worldview to truly listen to another. There was no preparation for Christian high school students to really encounter difference and engage it in a manner that would open further conversation and deepen relationships. In fact, given the tone of apologetics and evangelism, it would seem to me that the drive-by conversation promoted by this initiative has the potential to create further alienation between Christian and gay students – with the additional sadness for gay Christian students caught in the cross-hairs.
It occurs to me that while gay-straight alliance students groups can easily be perceived as promoting a particular view of homosexuality, such groups are designed for open dialogue to happen in safe and positive environments. Students of majority and minority sexual identity have the opportunity to come together to hear one another’s experiences, one another’s beliefs and values, and learn to be supportive of one another despite any differences in perspective or experience. It occurs to me that the Day of Silence asks students to adopt the discipline of fasting from speaking as a tangible (and for some likely very challenging) sign of solidarity.
If the Day of Dialogue was actually encouraging dialogue that might be one thing. If it was willingly partnering with forums for ongoing conversation that might be something. But given the reality of its emphasis, one might do well to question whether this is really about concern for gay students, or the encouragement of Christian students, or whether the Day of Dialogue is an extension of the promotion and proselytizing of a particular worldview.
My hope and prayer is that on both days, April 19 & 20, students will pause and reflect on our interconnectedness one with another….. that we will remember my favorite quote from Desmond Tutu, “When I diminish you, I diminish myself.”
-WG
As is so often the case, you've provided a wonderful analysis and some great insights.
ReplyDeleteI must say that I like the new message of the Day of Dialogue, and I'm glad that it at least mentions that Christians who believe in a traditional understanding of marriage and human sexuality are opposed to anti-gay bullying and harassment. (I'll also note, however, that the proof is ultimately in the pudding, and I'll be more inclined to take that statement seriously as I see it acted out.)
I'll also note that, for me, I find the idea of yet another person telling me about the traditional view of God's plan for sexuilty in marriage frustrating. I've heard it before, several times. I think one would be hard-pressed to find anyone -- let alone an LGBT person -- in our society who hasn't heard it several times over. And I admit that I find it challenging to respond with generosity or humility when given an invitation to hear it again. Truth be told, I'm sorely tempted (and admit that I occasionally give in to the temptation) to respond by saying, "You know, I've heard this. You and those who believe the same have been 'sharing' this information with those like me for decades. Don't you think it's time to shut up and let others speak?"
I suppose that's why I appreciate your honest evaluation of the Day of Dialogue site (which I have not yet checked out) and your call to listen as part of the dialogue process. I guess it reminds me that some people really do comprehend that sense of frustration I'm talking about.
The personal stories in the articles were consistently of those who felt same-sex attraction, some of whom had been involved in same-sex relationships or sexual activity, who turned away from anything associated with homosexuality to focus on a primary identity in Christ.
Again, I haven't checked out the Day of Dialogue site, so I can't speak to them directly. Maybe what I'm about to say doesn't apply to it specifically. However, the way that personal stories are cherry-picked, framed, and presented by many organizations who promote a traditional understanding of sexuality and marriage is something personally troubling to me. They often conflate other issues (like addiction and even general bad relationship choices) with sexuality. And then they're often generalized and assumed to be the experience of all LGBT people. I have no problems accepting that many LGBT people who struggle with depression. However, depression is something people of all sexualities and gender identities struggle with. And also, one shouldn't ignore the fact that many LGBT don't suffer from depression and many others do or have at one time, but have found ways to cope with and overcome it and still embrace same-sex relationships and same-sex sexual activity.
As an aside, this is a particularly troublesome issue to me because I'm reading "Out of a Far Country" by Christopher and Angela Yuan. On its own, it's a wonderful read and a touching story. But it's impossible for me to read this book outside the context of the way conservative Christianity has historically held up stories like Christopher's as "THE gay experience," and I find myself wondering if the authors will address that tendency by the end of the book or if they will allow -- even if unintentionally -- their book to become part of that narrative that is assumed to be true for all LGBT people.
At any rate, thank you for this post.
I am a person with SSA who holds the traditional view, but here are some of my obervations:
ReplyDelete1. It is interesting to note that all through the navigation of "this gay thing" it is the "church" that has in fact had to do the most backtracking.
The church is miles away from where it used to be (by and large) in terms of its understanding and characterization of the issue of homosexuality.
It has had to admit, along the way, that much of what activists (or even ordinary sexual minorities) have been saying all along is probably true.
And it keeps coming. (Albert Mohler, for example, long ago began preparing for the day when science might show conclusively that same sex attractions are not a "choice" and don't appear to "just go away"; urging that we need to abandon the push against science and just hold that whatever the cause, SSA is non-ideal and against God's plan.) Not to mention the shifts in the "ex-gay" world in terms of terminology etc.
Some of the outcomes of this are:
--A more moderate tone;
--A belated awakening to the fact that you can't just "pray away" this problem;
--an acknowledgement of the problem of bullying and ill-treatment
Among other things.
2. Thank you for your observation that the "dialogue" is still a lecture.
I am not necessarily pushing for generous spaciousness here (as my cultural context is very restricted and this is unreasonable to expect).
What I am pushing for is a basic acknowledgement by the sexual majority in the church that people with same-sex attractions are 100% persons that are equal with them; and the necessary humility to be quiet and listen for once.
Wendy, you don't know how much I long to tell someone my story. I have no-one to share this lonely existence with;no-one who understands or at the very least cares.
Can we at least have some space to tell our stories without being maligned? Without having to be "pre-qualified" (like the church leader did before you talk)?
3.There seems to be some general fear that hearing our stories will change people's minds on the biblical position. This seems to be the overriding fear in any dialogue.
All discussion/story-telling must be prefaced with--and heavily monitored by--a complete Bible study on traditional sexuality; lest sympathy lead to doubt
Why?
This doubt is a good thing I think. You see, when straight people begin to agonize between what the Bible says and what seems fair and just based on their friendship with homosexuals and their stories, then and only then will they truly understand how it feels to have same-sex attractions.
Everything before that is just talk.
Traditionalists might "lose some over the edge" (i.e. some will convert to a liberal position on sexuality), but the ones that retain the conservative stance will be kinder, gentler and more supportive straight people.
4. You are correct that all this "dialogue" is devoid of one thing: genuine friendship.
Are Christians encouraged to put away their prejudices and become genuine friends with sexual minorities (active or not)?
Or are we at it again yelling information from the Bible at people?
What does "God loves you and I do to," mean on a throwaway card when you won't even eat lunch with the person tomorrow?
When they are hurting inside do you talk to them?
Do you stand up against bullying?
Do you make them feel welcome or like outsiders?
Anyways, that's enough now.
Thank you Jarred and Andy for two excellent contributions to the conversation! Appreciate you sharing your first-hand experience.
ReplyDeleteWendy - thanks for the great post and the insight you give to the "Day of Dialogue."
ReplyDeleteI too wonder how the Christian student handing out these cards will "stand up for students around me being teased, bullied or harmed for any reason"? Have their church environments and experiences prepared them to do so? How many Christian youth workers are equipping their youth to stand with the marginalized in a way that makes a difference?
Richard Beck in a post on his blog gives a much-needed challenge when he writes:
This is what I think. I think every Christ-following church should start talking to their youth groups, saying unambiguously: We want you to be a wall of protection for kids like Jamey. Seek out and protect--emotionally and socially--every weird, weak, nerdy, lonely, queer kid at your school. We don't care if they are a goth, or a druggy, or a queer. Doesn't matter. Protect these kids. Churches should train their youth groups to be angels of protection, teaching them to find these kids and say, "Hey, I love you. Jesus loves you. So no one's going to bully you. Not on my watch. Come sit with me at lunch." That's what I think. I think every Christ-following church should start Guardian Angel programs like this, teaching their kids to stick up for kids like Jamey. Not with violence. But with welcome and solidarity. Because it's hard to bully a group. So let's welcome these kids into a halo of protection and friendship.
from The Gospel According to Lady Gaga.
I've never done any of what some people might call evangelism. For most of my youth and teenage years, this was something that weighed on me. I was a Christian, wasn't I? And as such, I was meant to share my faith, right? Was my reticence to do so evidence that I was "ashamed of the gospel?" I'd certainly heard that phrase tossed about in relation to a call toward evangelism.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I envisioned a conversation with a non-Christian entered into on my side with the intent of evangelism, anything I could think of that I might say sounded unfeeling and arrogant. I could think of any number of things such a person might say to me to which I would not necessarily have a ready answer, and then what would I be? Unfeeling, arrogant, and ill-informed. A part of me wanted to have a whole library of good arguments stockpiled in my brain, just to have a response to any possible turn of the conversation. But an even larger part of me was repelled by such a notion--such a mechanical way of communicating something that was so personal and meaningful to me. So in the end I kept silent and felt guilty about it.
I guess I'm saying all of this because I feel I can relate to those students who are encouraged to engage in this type of "dialogue." They want to be prepared, they want to know what to say, and they want to be able to anticipate and respond to anything the other person might say. So these cards and this website give them ready-made answers. That's tempting. I remember the temptation. But I also remember my own aversion to saying words that were ultimately not my own, reciting from a script of memorized lines.
I still don't evangelize, but I no longer feel guilty about that. It's all been a part of my process of growing in my faith. But I remember that pressure. I remember being afraid that I wasn't really a Christian if I wasn't a walking billboard for Christ. But I don't want to be a billboard--I want to be an incarnation. I don't want to advertise--I want to love. And love has everything to do with listening and understanding and an absence of agenda. I really wish more young Christians could be exposed to the way of relating that you so eloquently express in your blog, and I wish they could be relieved of the pressure to evangelize.
Thanks Rob and Emily. This particular posts is eliciting stellar comments!! So great!
ReplyDeleteRob G: First, I love that quote by Richard Beck. Thank you for sharing it with me.
ReplyDeleteI think in some ways, some conservative Christians have painted themselves into a corner when it comes to standing up for LGBT kids (and people for that matter) who are being teased, harassed and bullied. I remember in college (I time when I was both Christian and in denial about my own sexual feelings) by watching a couple of friends who were torn when our campus was drumming up support for gay people (at the time, practically no one was thinking much about bisexual or transgender people) and the issues they faced. Both friends believed in equal protections in personal safety, housing, and employment. Both also held a traditional view of marriage and sexuality. And they struggled with the question of how to show support to the former without abandoning -- or even appearing to abandon -- the latter. One solved the problem by wearing jeans (the method chosen to show support that year) along with a sign clearly delineating his views. The other chose to wear denim shorts, which were kinda sorta like jeans. As a result, people would ask him, and he was able to give a more nuanced answer.
The thing is, there's this huge concern among some conservative evangelicals who are so concerned about staying true to what they believe God says on the subject and making it perfectly clear they do so that even coming out and saying "hurting LGBT people is bad" becomes problematic. On the one hand, I'm sympathetic. I appreciate not being misunderstood or having people make incorrect assumptions about what you think, feel or believe. On the other hand, I look at the position and I'm reminded of one of my favorite bits of dialogue from "Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone:"
Hermione: I'm going to bed before the two of you get us killed...or worse, expelled!
Ron: (To Harry.) Her priorities are a bit messed up, aren't they?
Emily: I love your comments here. And if Wendy doesn't mind, I'd like to talk a bit about evangelism. It's a topic that is of great interest and a source of great passion to me. That's probably a bit odd, since I'm a former fundamentalist Christian who now serves a goddess.
ReplyDeleteI understand wanting "the right answers" to the point of feeling like you really need them. The way that evangelism is described and promotoed most (I'd estimate about 90%) of the time helps to encourage that sort of thinking. The problem is, I don't think the way that evangelism is described and promoted most of the time is actually effective or helpful. In fact, I think it's often couterproductive and hurtful. You see, the way evangelism is presented often resembles the way telemarketing and other forms of sales work:
1. The salesperson (evangelist) has a product.
2. Zie wants to sell me that product.
3. Zie then finds a way to interact with me/insert zirself in my life.
4. Begins promoting the product
a. Tries to convince me I need the product.
b. Tries to convince me of the superiority of their product over competitors' products.
c. Tries to answer all my questions about their product to convince me of a and b.
I could run with this analogy and show all the ways it works out, but I'm trying to keep this comment somewhat short. But seriously, if you look at the way a lot of people do evangelism or are told to do evangelism closely enough, you start seeing the similarities. (YOu especially see them if you're one of the "potential customers" who isn't interested and has trouble convincing the "salesperson" of that fact.)
As an aside, about a month ago, I found a voicemail message when I came home. It was a pre-recorded message left on behalf of a church. The message informed me that they wanted to share te good news of Jesus Christ with me and would appreciate it if I would call them back at a certain number. I kid you not, you could have replaced the phrase "share the good news of Jesus Christ with you" with "tell you about potentially hundred in savings on your auto insurance" and the message would've still made sense. I deleted the message, called my dear friend Marisa (an evangelical Christian) and shared a good belly laugh.
Personally, I think people like Fred Clark, have a much better and more effective understanding of evangelism. Fred refers to evangelism as "an act of hospitality," invitational in nature and an opportunity to share. While she doesn't use those words, my friend Marisa takes a very similar approach. While I know exactly what she believes -- as does anyone who really takes the time to get to know her -- her focus is on building friendships and sharing lives. Her beliefs come out naturally as a result of that sharing process. And let me tell you, Marisa has done far more to tempt me to give Christianity another look than all the street preachers, door-to-door evangelists, and other marketing-like evangelists
combined.
I sometimes wonder if the churches Wendy speaks to really understand what she's offering them when sharing the ideas of generous spaciousness with them. In reality, generous spaciousness is based on that same hospitable, invitational model of evangelism that I personally know is so effective.
Jarred I love your honest - and I sincerely hope that Christians still driven by a modernity-based evangelistic model will listen very carefully to what you've said here. I sometimes wonder too if the churches that hear about generous spaciousness really understand that at its core it is about incarnational hospitality (a critical facet of which is being willing to strip oneself of majority status/power status privilege). My hope is that as New Direction is consistent in its message that it will have a deeper impact.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me about this post wasn't so much what was written in it, although there was much to think on, but rather the illustration you used.
ReplyDeleteTwo people talking across a brick wall.
I liked that image because it seemed to denote dialog from a place of safety. I don't mind talking to anyone no matter how extremely anti-gay or homophobic their views as long as I feel that my own personal safety and freedom won't be compromised.
There's a place for brick walls in this world.
Hi Jarred, I'm going to respond mostly to your first post on March 29.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing honestly about the struggle many Christians face. I myself encountered the same issue at my undergrad college. Last year, the campus decided to wear purple one day as a sign of support for LGBTQ folks. At the time I was pretty on the fence, theologically, about the issue of homosexuality, so I wasn't sure if I felt quite ready to make a public display of support. However, after some thought and prayer, I decided to go ahead and wear purple. My reasoning was twofold: 1) I DO support civil rights for LGBTQ folks. I will even support same-sex relationships, even if I'm unsure of what they mean morally. 2) Sure, it's possible that someone might misunderstand my intentions or assume that I'm actively affirming. But even if that happens, is that the end of the world? It is pretty well known on campus that I'm a Christian (it's a small school). Would I rather be mistaken for being affirming? Or would I rather be mistaken for being indifferent to the realities of LGBTQ bullying and suicide, adding to the hurt that many LGBTQ people experience from Christians? I think I'll risk the former. If I'm going to err at all, I'd rather err on the side of grace than on the side of truth ("truth").