Last night we had a small group of people gather to hear the
story and journey of New Direction. I
was asked a fantastic question, one that I have pondered a fair bit. The questioner inquired about the trajectory
and future of New Direction. He talked about
the race issue and the implications of generous spaciousness ….. musing that at
some point you wouldn’t want generous spaciousness to include the position that
would continue to relegate people of colour to the back of the bus. He wanted to know whether generous
spaciousness was a temporary posture – and one that would give way to a fully
and completely affirming perspective – challenging any other position.
This is a great question – it demonstrates a real wrestling
with matters of justice and equity and what generous spaciousness really means –
and what it creates space for. Clearly,
generous spaciousness is not meant to be a shelter for injustice or the
perpetuation of inequity of persons. There is a commitment to honouring our interdependence as persons with
the understanding that “If I diminish you, I diminish myself.” In light of that, if someone truly holds
convictions that differ from mine – held without fear, anger, prejudice or
shame – then I want to ensure that they have the space to hold those convictions
in alignment with their conscience.
The challenge with the topic of same-sex sexuality is that
it is not a perfect parallel to the issues around race and racism. While there may be similar issues around
status, privilege, equity and justice – they are also distinct and
can’t be spoken about as if they are exactly the same. One of the ways I have viewed this reality is
to think about it as somewhere between an issue like race and an issue like
women in ministry. As I’ve written about
before, as a woman in ministry I encounter people who believe that women should
not be allowed to preach or teach. Some
of these people may hold these beliefs because of internalizing a patriarchal
system the views women as less than men.
I believe the system of patriarchy must be addressed and dismantled –
because I think it is in contradiction to what scripture tells me about who I
am as a woman who is a child of God and created in God’s image. But there are people who do not hold these
convictions because of patriarchy – but because of the way they approach and
engage with scripture. They believe,
sometimes with some degree of pain, that women ought not to teach and preach or
lead because of the way they interpret particular passages of scripture. While I might disagree with them, I believe
that scripture calls me to honour them and their convictions.
With the topic of same-sex sexuality I think there are some
non-negotiables that need to be addressed.
Sexual minority persons are not second class citizens in any way. They are children of God, created in God’s
image. They deserve to be honoured with
the same dignity and respect of any other human being. The ground is level at the foot of the cross
where every human being needs God’s grace.
Every human being has been given free will and a conscience and the gift
of exercising these things. Therefore,
coercion, violence, pressure, shame, rejection ought never be used to try to
get people to believe what you believe.
If it is God’s kindness that is to lead us to repentance, then we ought
to entrust people to God and respond to them, despite differences, with
kindness and love. If God refuses to
turn us into robots to guarantee that we will believe the right things and
follow his ways, then we ought not try to control someone’s behaviours or
beliefs either.
But what about those who deeply believe that gay marriage
cannot honour God or receive his blessing? Is this belief, based on someone’s best reading of scripture, inherently
controlling, shame-based, fear-driven, or disrespectful to gay people? Some might say yes – that this belief is
unjust and that we will reach a time in the (near) future when this is even
clearer than it is today. For me, I am
compelled by the lives of disciples that I know who are gay and deeply
convicted and committed to living a celibate life. This isn’t just straight people reading the
bible and conveniently demanding uniform celibacy for an entire group of
people. These are gay Christians who
have done thorough study, who accept the reality of their same-sex orientation,
who find their security in being the Beloved of God – who also believe that
scripture compels them to be committed to live a celibate life. Who am I to insinuate that they are in
opposition to the path of justice?
Rather, I find myself compelled to ensure that as they may find
themselves more often in the minority among other gay Christians, that they
experience a safe and spacious place where their consciences are honoured,
where they are encouraged to live in alignment with their convictions, and
where I am postured to listen and learn from their journey with Christ as a
mutual pilgrim with them. (This could be similarly applied to those who experience same-sex attraction but who are deeply committed to their opposite gender spouse and family.)
Generous spaciousness is committed to a trajectory of
justice and equity. The kind of space we
want to nurture views all people as loved and valued by God. God, through Christ, has broken dividing
walls. Generous spaciousness also
recognizes that people committed to Jesus Christ and committed to the authority
of the scriptures do come to different convictions on the matter of gay
marriage. Generous spaciousness focuses on
the question, “Given this diversity, how now shall we live together?”
There is a lot of pressure in this whole conversation
however. For someone to believe that God
will not bless or honour the commitment of a same-sex couple in a marriage relationship
can seem to be unjust – especially if they are straight and perhaps married
themselves. There are no simple easy
answers. Anyone who is a Christian needs
to wrestle with these challenging matters.
I believe it is incumbent upon any Christian to do their homework and
understand why they believe what they believe and to think very deeply about
the way Christ would have them express what they believe. I think they also need to humbly and openly
consider what others believe and why they believe it – and have the grace to
see the ways that those they disagree with are also seeking God’s face through
earnest and faithful engagement with the scriptures.
One of the things I am encountering more and more in
response to this difficult matter is people who simply say, “I don’t have a
position.” I can totally understand why
people say this. The minute you express
your convictions on this matter all kinds of assumptions can be made. And often, once you declare your position the
conversation shuts down pretty quickly.
Either the person who asked you agrees with you – so there isn’t much
else to say – or they disagree with you – and unless the two of you want to get
into one of those exhausting debates (which many of us are thoroughly sick and
tired of) then there isn’t much more to talk about either. I find that the people who say, “I don’t have
a position” are usually those who hope to actually be able to engage in some
conversation about the matter. That, and they hope that this will be a way to prevent offending someone.
That isn’t what Wes and I encountered yesterday. We spoke at a Baptist church and Wes shared about being a gay Christian – though he did not reveal whether he was or
wasn’t open to a same-sex relationship.
I had made it clear in my message that we were not there to promote or
defend a particular theological, moral position (that was the job of their
local pastor and leadership team) but that we were there to encourage them to a
deeper commitment to incarnational ministry with those who may be different
from them or disagree with them. A lot
of people were tracking with us, and many thanked us after the service, some
with tears in their eyes. But there were
a couple of men who became very insistent in demanding to know what our
position was. They were pretty sure that
based on what we said that we were affirming of same-sex “practicing” (as they
called it). We explained that at New
Direction we acknowledge that Christians disagree about this matter – and that
we wanted to create space for people to wrestle with God and scripture and to
own their convictions and live in alignment with their conscience – and that
our focus was to encourage them in their walk with Christ with the confidence
that the Holy Spirit could be trusted to lead them and us in all truth and
righteousness. Their anxiety was
palpable. They did not have the capacity
for a conversation. They just wanted to
know the black and white answer to what our personal position was. We attempted to open the conversation in a
number of different ways but they simply became more frustrated and more
insistent on knowing what our personal position was. In the end, they left with a pretty intense
emotional weight hanging in the air.
I have sometimes encountered people who say “we have no
position” whose contribution in conversation reveals that they do have a
position – they just don’t want to say so.
While I understand that they may say that to open the conversation – for
anyone who has any experience in this conversation, they will sniff out their
real position pretty quickly. In this
case, the “we have no position” isn’t viewed very favorably – because it seems
like a cheap attempt at an easy way out of owning the position that is
held. It can feel like a bait and
switch. "Let’s be friends, I have no
position" ….. but as time goes by it is pretty clear that there is a position
and that there isn’t room to belong on an equal footing and to differ from that
position. This can be really frustrating
because investing time and energy in relationship only to discover later that
there isn’t really room to experience equity if there is disagreement can feel
devaluing. It can feel like the person
who said “I have no position” was really just banking on persuading you that
their position was correct so that everything would be alright in the end. When
this doesn’t happen people get hurt. This is especially true if a pastor says, "we have no position" but their real position is that gay people can experience transformation including the capacity to enter a heterosexual marriage. If the pastor is straight and married this can seem especially underhanded. And if the pastor has not familiarized himself with the reality of ex-gay survivor narratives and the research that indicates orientation change is extremely rare and attempts to change someone's orientation can be harmful, there can be an understandable response of cynicism, bitterness and resentment and a real sense of betrayal and mistrust of the church.
I think the only real way you can say, “We have no position”
is to acknowledge that there are faithful Christians who take the bible
seriously who come to different positions.
For example, if a church invites me to preach and says, “We have no
position on women in ministry”- I will need to know upfront if my preaching
there is going to cause a problem or conflict for the congregation. I need to know if I accept this invitation am
I going to get a call in a couple of weeks saying, “Sorry, we actually can’t
have you come because our community can’t support women in the pulpit.” If a church invites me to come and says, “We
acknowledge that Christians disagree about women in ministry – and our members
who do not support women in ministry are given the space to choose whether to
attend or not attend when you preach” that is a different story. It might not be as ideal as going to a place
that is fully supportive of women in ministry – but at least I know that there
has been honest discussion and that I can go and offer my gifts and service
with the confidence that it will be a relatively safe space for me. But if a church says, “We have no position –
but please come” and I go and discover that really they disagree with women in
ministry and just invited me so that they could try to convince me that I’m
wrong to get into the pulpit – that is NOT ok.
But, I think that is what some pastors and ministries are trying to do
to gay people. They say, “we have no
position” to try to seem invitational – but when the rubber hits the road the
gay person realizes that the pastor or ministry is expecting them to submit to
some kind of healing process or expectation of transformation or they will find
that they are not able to serve or contribute unless they agree with the
position that celibacy is the only option for gay Christians. This is NOT ok.
New Direction skirts a pretty fine line, I realize. We sort of fit into that “no position”
description. Wes and I do not talk about
our personal position on gay marriage for Christians. That isn’t the point of our ministry. And we know that as soon as we do reveal our
personal positions conversation can shut down or people who disagree with our
personal positions can simply write-off what we are saying about the church
nurturing hospitable space and engaging in incarnational ministry. But, we don’t have a hidden agenda
either. We aren’t trying to convince a
church to adopt this or that theological position. We come into a church with the understanding
that we will honour their position and work within the boundaries of that. And for gay people, because we acknowledge
that faithful Christians disagree – we nurture safe spaces that don’t hold a
hidden “gotcha” later. A gay Christian
can connect with us in the confidence that our clear priority is that they have
every opportunity to explore and grow in their faith in Jesus Christ. We aren’t
going to break off relationship based on their convictions about gay
marriage. We are going to keep on
walking together, growing in our capacity to follow Jesus in alignment with our
conscience and convictions.
-wg
I tend to have issues with the "no position" stance. (Incidentally, I do not actually consider generous spacious to be reflective of that stance.) One of the people I respect and admire is Misty Irons, who has no problem expressing her own position -- her current (assuming it hasn't changed since the last time I saw her write on the topic) understanding is that Scripture calls gay and same-sex (only) attracted Christians to lifelong celibacy. The thing is, her position doesn't end there.
ReplyDelete1. She also acknowledges that there are people who have read the same Bible and have reasonably come to different conclusions. She recognizes those people as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. She does not denigrate them. She has even considered their arguments and can point out where she feels they make good points. She simply finds their arguments ultimately unconvincing. That's respectful disagreement.
2. She also acknowledges that a lifetime of celibacy can be a difficult path to follow for anyone, and expecting it of an entire class of people is no small thing, especially when it's a class of people she doesn't belong to.
3. She addresses many of the things you referred to as "non-negotiable."
I acknowledge that many LGBT people would find her view on lifelong celibacy as a conversation stopper. However, I personally find it preferable to a statement about having no position because in my experience, many of those who say they have no position don't want to talk about these issues at all, but prefer to sweep them under the rug. The thing is, these issues are important and impact my life. That's not something I'm willing to watch get swept under the rug.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't really consider generous spaciousness -- at least not as it's practiced by New Direction and you in particular -- to be a statement of "no position," because you do engage in these issues. To me, "I have a position, but I don't wish to impose it on everyone around me" (or "we acknowledge that many different people have come to different conclusions and do not wish as an organization to dictate which position should be adopted by others") is a position in its own right -- and in my opinion, a radical improvement over the common past position of churches and religious organizations.
And again, I'll note that your strong statements concerning those issues you consider "non-negotiable" are a position and again tend to represent a stance that at least some other "no position" people and groups seem unwilling to address.
I agree Jarred. I think Misty has been courageous and clear in her engagement in this matter. And she's taken the hits for it.
ReplyDeleteI also appreciate that you recognize that generous spaciousness isn't just some wishy-washy, hide behind a feigned uncertainty sort of thing. We view generous spaciousness as a tangible and intentional effort to create space where different perspectives can be acknowledged and people can be encouraged on their journeys in positive, life-affirming ways.
I am regularly referring people to the blog's articles on generous spaciousness, and here is yet another excellent one. I am so looking forward to your book being published!
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to share that I was recently in a situation where I purposely shared my views, even though I knew it would mean some people would stop listening. A recent synod meeting approved the option for priests to provide same-sex blessings. The conservative church which we attend is not very happy about this, and has been having discussions about how to respond. At the annual general meeting a few weeks ago, many spoke in opposition to the SSB option. Some did so graciously -- this is their conviction based on their understanding of scripture. Some did so in a way that was obviously hateful and antagonistic.
In this context, I shared (among other things) that I was pleased with the synod decision and that my heart has been grieved that our gay brothers and lesbian sisters have not been welcomed with open arms.
I realize that some people will not hear anything I say anymore, but it was important to speak out loud in this case so that those who are part of a sexual minority know that there are people who accept them and embrace them, even if the church overall is not welcoming.
The struggle of the church with right doctrine, correct moral teaching and the biblical definition of sin, is, I believe, only part of the rediscovery of the church as a channel of life.
ReplyDeleteAn order is collapsing. The order we call the the church - based on right doctrine and right theology - is having a nervous breakdown.
The two men in the Baptist church have no other identity than being 'good Christians' or 'good baptists' in a structure that has a clear intellectual definition of right and wrong. Take away that clarity - the rules, the law - and the structure and way of 'church' that gives them their identity would collapse, and with it their identity.
In God's grace, it is likely that it is collapsing, going through a 'death to self' so that our true identity and true freedom in Christ could emerge.
What is freedom for some will seem like torture to others.
Wendy,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for articulating this "position" so well. I find it difficult to explain this same type of generous spaciousness to others, especially those who hold more traditionally conservative views of same-sex sexuality. So I greatly appreciate your words and your heart as evidenced by how you've stated your convictions. Your gracious heart is evident. Thank you for sharing.
Many blessings on you and New Directions!
" In this case, the “we have no position” isn’t viewed very favorably – because it seems like a cheap attempt at an easy way out of owning the position that is held. It can feel like a bait and switch. "Let’s be friends, I have no position" ….. but as time goes by it is pretty clear that there is a position and that there isn’t room to belong on an equal footing and to differ from that position. This can be really frustrating because investing time and energy in relationship only to discover later that there isn’t really room to experience equity if there is disagreement can feel devaluing. "
ReplyDeleteThis is why Andrew Marin is viewed with skepticism by the gay community - even a significant portion of those who identify as gay and Christian. It's the (well-founded, IMO) fear of ultimately being devalued and dismissed. Ex-ex-gay folks can sniff this from a long way off and are especially cautious, if not outright hostile to people/organizations who espouse this position. These are people who have already been deeply wounded. Why would they welcome it again?