Saturday, July 27, 2013

The Heresy of Restored Hope Network

Okay – so I had another frustrating go on Moody Radio and their “Up for Debate” program.  The first time I was on with Mario Bergner and it was super frustrating.  This was mainly due to the host favoring Mario so that I felt I had very little opportunity to respond to things he would say.  This time around was slightly less frustrating.  The other guest was Anne Paulk who has been hired as the Coordinator for Restored Hope Ministries.  RHM is the break-away group that left Exodus last year and maintain fundamentalist views about orientation change and the demands of obedience for people who experience same-sex attraction.  This time I didn’t get interrupted mid-sentence – but I was asked to speak first every time – which meant that Anne always got to respond to what I’d said – but I was not afforded the same opportunity.  This inevitably skews the conversation.

So, since I did not have the opportunity to say everything I wanted to say – and because I now feel that after this first-hand experience I can say some things in response to RHM – I figured this was the time to put some of my thoughts out there.

The focus of the program, apparently, was on the efficacy of orientation change.  I think this is really a distraction and a secondary matter in the whole question of how the Christian community ought to engage with sexual minority individuals.  (Note:  Anne thought my use of this descriptor was “modern” language – and that she didn’t believe there was such a thing as sexual minority individuals.  From my perspective, there are people who have a different experience of sexuality than the majority of people who find themselves heterosexually attracted – and so it simply makes sense as a value neutral term to describe them as those who have a sexual minority experience.)

So I tried to open with a nuanced allowance that understands that sexuality is fluid for some people, perhaps especially women.  The idea that some people may experience some shifts in their experience of sexual attraction isn’t such a controversial idea in my mind.  There are many people in the human population who have the capacity for bisexual functioning – and to think that they might make some choices to particularly focus on one gender or the other isn’t such a stretch.  But I wouldn’t call this orientation change.

I also think that human beings have the capacity to live chaste lives with determination and God’s grace.  It might be difficult.  And imposed singleness and celibacy can certainly cause distress, pain, and other negative effects on a person’s sense of self.  But sexual chastity is certainly something that can be achieved.  But again, I wouldn’t call this orientation change.

I have a lot of mixed feelings about mixed orientation marriages.  I have gone on record as saying that I do not recommend that people take this route.  On the other hand, I offer support to the best of my ability to those who are living in the reality of a mixed orientation marriage and desire to maintain a faithful, healthy and loving relationship.  And again, I believe that God can extend grace in these situations.  

However, I also know the pain of a marriage that comes to the breaking point.  And one of the reasons that marriages come to a breaking point is when the disconnection between spouses is so deep that one can feel like they are emotionally and spiritually dying.  Part of the genesis of such disconnection is when one spouse feels that they have to hide or suppress a significant aspect of their personhood.  Having walked with many people through this valley of the shadow of death, I also believe God’s grace meets us when we come to the limit of what we can endure.  Separation and divorce are always painful - but they are not outside of the reach of God's mercy and grace.

All of these things may be important for the Christian community to process in consideration of how to journey with sexual minority persons.  But they are not the primary matter.  The primary thrust of the entire story of Scripture is the revelation of a God who so loves what he created that a way has been made for all of creation to be fully reconciled back to God.  This is entirely God’s gift to a creation groaning under the burden of limitation and brokenness.  This reconciliation has been God’s plan from before the creation.  This reconciliation is God’s magnus opus in Jesus Christ.  And the reality of this reconciliation cannot be thwarted by any decisions or behaviors of human beings.  All things in the creation are offered one choice:  to receive or reject the reality of this reconciliation.  The repentance that is asked is the changing of our mind from viewing ourselves as our own god to the embrace of God and his gift of reconciliation.   Everything else is secondary.

The heresy, and yes I will choose to use such a strong word, of the Restored Hope Network is that they take this mystery of reconciliation out of God’s hands and put it in the hands of human beings.  They state that:

Sexual purity is a life-and-death matter. Sexual holiness for Christians matters to such an extent that living an unrepentant sexually immoral life can get even self-professed Christians excluded from the kingdom of God. For some this may mean that such persons were never true Christians to begin with; for others it may mean that such persons have fallen away from a once genuine faith. Either way, both can agree that a life committed to unrepentant, sexual immorality is evidence of a life not lived by saving faith.
The reason a conversation about sexual orientation change is so frustrating with someone from the Restored Hope Network is because we read the bible and construct our theology in such vastly different ways.

The starting points for engaging scripture that Anne articulated were the creation of male / female and her conviction that she looked at the absolute truth of the bible.  It also was apparent that her focus was on the need of human beings to repent and walk in obedience.
As I have previously posted, I believe that the foundation for our engagement with scripture must be on God.  That causes me to construct (because yes, all of our theology is constructed) my theology on the foundation of the Trinity and the Incarnation.  Understanding our sexuality doesn’t begin with the description of male / female in the creation account – it begins with who God is and what it means to be created in God's image. 

The idea that some people follow the “absolute truth” of the bible while others follow “revisionist” interpretations is a convenient way to dismiss someone else’s perspectives.  But it is false.  No one engages scripture without interpretation.  And no one is a perfect interpreter of scripture.  Period.  That means that all Christians need to have some humility in presenting their scriptural convictions.  The idea that we can quote this text or that text and make absolute claims that supposedly someone with different convictions couldn’t possibly argue is immature at best.  

I do believe that scripture is inspired by God.  I believe that we have been given God’s story so that God can reveal who he is to us and show us that the way of reconciliation has already been accomplished for us through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  But each particular text comes to us with the reality of original context, translation, and the need for discernment to name just a few simple factors.  And the reality is that committed followers of Christ wrestle with the implications of context in different ways, understand the dilemmas of translation in different ways, and exercise discernment in different ways.  We see this reality within the pages of scripture itself.  The early church wrestled mightily with how to discern the integration of the Hebrew scriptures and the teachings of Jesus and the implications for those who were Jewish and those who were Gentile.  And people disagreed.  And none of these disagreements nullified in any way the accomplished work of reconciliation through Jesus Christ.

While I believe that ongoing repentance and obedience are important markers of the Christian life, I do not frame things the same way that Anne does.  The life of a follower of Christ begins with the earth-shattering realization that the God of the universe knows my name, counts the hairs on my head, and loves me beyond my imagination.  The rest of my life in Christ flows out of perpetual gratitude for this reality.  That means that when I change my mind about something, it is because the love of Christ compels me.  That means when I make a difficult choice to obey God instead of going my own way, it is because I trust the love of Christ to be life-giving.  We repent and obey in response to God’s love – not to keep or earn God’s love.  The idea that a failure to repent of something or a failure to obey means that God will withdraw his love and withdraw the reconciliation that Christ accomplished makes a mockery of the cross.  Is our sin more powerful than the cross of Christ?  Surely not.  Christ has already swallowed up sin and death.  It has already been defeated.  When our hearts are turned towards Christ to rejoice in and receive the good news that we are reconciled to God through Christ then absolutely nothing can separate us from the love of God.   Certainly, where committed Christians wrestle to interpret and discern, and come to differing conclusions about what is being asked of us in our grateful response to God’s love there is an abundance of mercy and grace.  It is God’s heart that all things would be receptive to the amazing reality that Christ has accomplished reconciliation for the whole of creation.

Restored Hope Network advocates orientation change because they believe that it is the only way for a sexual minority person to be enfolded into reconciliation with God.  While they might acknowledge that some people will continue to experience same-sex attraction, their focus is on the fight, the struggle, the need to strive against what they deem to be sin.  I think this is a heretical priority. 

The reality is that the bible doesn't speak to matters of sexual orientation, sexual attraction, or sexual identity.  The bible speaks to particular sexual behaviours in specific contexts.  The challenge for sexual minority persons and the Christian community is to discern what that means for those we today understand to be predominantly oriented to their own gender.  Homosexual rape - negative prohibition.  Sexual behaviour in the context of idol worship - negative prohibition.  Coercive sexual behaviour with minors - probable prohibition if that is what the translations are referring to.  Consensual, committed partnerships - not mentioned.  Thus the complexity in the discernment process.  Thus the reality of diversity in perspectives.

What I do know is that our humanity matters to God.  Our personhood matters to God.  Our sexuality is part of our personhood.  It doesn’t define us.  It doesn’t constitute our entire identity.  But it is a part of our humanity that we can honestly accept as we seek to discern how to live as a faithful follower of Jesus. And our drive to relationship and family is part of imaging God and it is something that God acknowledges as a legitimate need - even before sin entered the creation.  

To pit feelings against obedience is a reductionistic view of sexuality and our humanity.   Every human being has temptations to face.  The deeper we are immersed in the confidence of God’s love, the more we are able to gratefully choose God’s life-giving reality over the empty escapes we are so often drawn to.  And yet our human lives are marked by the ways we succumb to lure of empty pleasure.  The western church is, by and large, a fat, lazy, consumeristic, and apathetic bunch to name just a few of the obvious fruits of our giving in to temptation.  Despite all this, we are the people of God.  Beloved.  Fully dependent on grace.  Fully dependent on the accomplished work of Christ. 

Where our gratitude for this gift of grace shines is when we pour out self-giving love, when we live faithfully, when we not only forgive our enemies but learn to love them, when we care for those who are marginalized and in need, when we live humbly and work for justice, when we participate in nurturing shalom in our communities. 

I wish I could say that I hear this in the work of the Restored Hope Network.   What I hear is an inordinate attention on determining who is right, who is in, and criticizing those who aren’t.  I don’t hear much of a passion for the world that God has made.  I don’t hear much of a passion for those on the margins cowering in fear.  I don’t hear a whole lot about God’s love or mercy or grace.  I hear words of repentance and obedience…. And I am reminded of Jesus’ words reiterating the words of the prophet Hosea:

But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”   (Matthew 9:13)

If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.(Matthew 12:7)



12 comments:

  1. "Coercive sexual behaviour with minors - probable prohibition if that is what the translations are referring to. Consensual, committed partnerships - not mentioned."
    Are you saying that the Bible has no clear principles that would prohibit coercive sexual behaviour with minors? I don't think you would say that. But are you saying that it is a matter of indifference whether Christians have consensual homosexual relationships as long as they are in the context of committed partnerships? And are you saying that the Bible has no clear guidance in the matter?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Wendy,

    I listened to the radio program and while I appreciated some of your statements about the priority of discipleship and questioned others about how we respond to His calling, (finding the program overall a very engaging hearing of two differing perspectives), I was rather taken aback at the use of the word "heresy" in the title of this blog post. That is a very strong term, and the application given by you appears twofold:

    [1] "All things in the creation are offered one choice: to receive or reject the reality of this reconciliation. The repentance that is asked is the changing of our mind from viewing ourselves as our own god to the embrace of God and his gift of reconciliation. Everything else is secondary. ...
    The heresy ... is that they take this mystery of reconciliation out of God’s hands and put it in the hands of human beings. They state that: 'Sexual purity is a life-and-death matter. ... (And) a life committed to unrepentant, sexual immorality is evidence of a life not lived by saving faith.'"
    ....
    [2] "Restored Hope Network advocates orientation change because they believe that it is the only way for a sexual minority person to be enfolded into reconciliation with God.... their focus is on the fight, the struggle, the need to strive against what they deem to be sin. I think this is a heretical priority."

    I'm having difficulty making the connection between the first quoted statement and the characterization of reconciliation by human effort rather than by receiving a gift from God. Was the concern that it appears to be a works mentality? While I hear you speaking of salvation in very different language, I don't hear in the above quoted statements of RHN what you are attributing. I hear a reflection of ample statements throughout scripture that speak of a faithful relationship of walking in with Christ in terms that evidence the commitment by how we respond to what He asks of us.

    For it was Christ Himself who said (John 15:15-24), "If ye love me, keep my commandments." ... "If a man love me, he will keep my words:and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me."

    To echo this and similar passages is not heresy, it is a reasonable and faithful reading of scripture. If you raise the objection that you don't like the language or the style of the RHN statements, or that you worry it could, depending on the context in which they are made, lead to a works mentality, that would be a very fair objection. Different groups have differing styles and areas of emphasis. But to call it "heretical" seems a bit excessive and unwarranted.

    (Part 1 of 2)

    ReplyDelete
  3. (Part 2 of 2)

    On the second instance where "heresy" is being attributed to the RHN, " I'm having difficulty connecting anything I heard from them with the attributed belief that "...[orientation change] is only way for a sexual minority person to be enfolded into reconciliation with God." As one who personally has not experienced any directional shifts at all in my sexual attractions, I would detect this were it truly the message.

    While personally I might tend to speak of transformation in different terms than RHN, I don't hear them making sexual orientation change a requirement (the "only way...") for relationship with God. I just hear them saying that God works very actively in peoples' lives to transform and enable them to respond to His calling. While their emphasis on attractional change as part of the testimonies of many among them may differ from others of us who have a different mix of testimonies, to call their emphasis "heresy" doesn't seem proportional or justified.

    On a different note yet still relevant because it pertains to differing theological formulations, I was wondering if you might unpack more of what is contained in the statement:
    "Understanding our sexuality doesn’t begin with the description of male / female in the creation account – it begins with who God is and what it means to be created in God's image. "

    I'm trying to comprehend how one could empty the creation account (Genesis 1-2) of its profound content in regards to gender and what that means for us to be created in His image, for that is perhaps the most foundational description of the Trinity: ”So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” If there is an alternative framing, it would be of interest to hear.

    Wendy, we've been pleasantly acquainted for a number of years, and I have known you to have compassion for people who are struggling with difficult situations and questions. I've also known you to be gracious towards those with whom you disagree. It is because this blog post seems so out of character for you that I'm writing to express my concern that you not lose what might be considered some of your ministry distinctives.

    Sonia

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you for bravely countering Restored Hope Network's harmful message in a bias radio forum. I appreciate your willingness to put yourself in such an obviously frustrating position.

    This statement succinctly says what I've been thinking so well:

    "...The idea that some people follow the 'absolute truth' of the bible while others follow 'revisionist' interpretations is a convenient way to dismiss someone else’s perspectives. But it is false. No one engages scripture without interpretation. And no one is a perfect interpreter of scripture. Period. That means that all Christians need to have some humility in presenting their scriptural convictions. The idea that we can quote this text or that text and make absolute claims that supposedly someone with different convictions couldn’t possibly argue is immature at best..."

    In my ex-gay experience, the bible was so often used to quash any serious questions or doubts about ex-gay theology and therapy. (The ex-gay ministry I attended even had bibles stashed away within a hands-reach in every room so leaders could quickly point-out scripture justifying their positions whenever too many questions were asked. It was bizarre, but funny.)

    The lack of humbleness is so disturbing. RHN has a great talent for sounding humble, while boldly promoting religious absolutes and fringe therapies.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello Ted. The New Testament scriptures do not explicitly speak of coercive sexual behavior with minors the way we would frame it today. However, there is a common understanding among interpreters of scripture that there was a prevalence of pederasty in the cultural context of those writing the NT texts. So while the prohibitions seem to be more general in nature, given the cultural context of the day it would seem that this common practice would be included in the prohibitions. In Jesus’ summary of the law and the prophets he admonishes his followers to love God fully and to love their neighbor. Coercive sexual behavior with minors does not exemplify loving one’s neighbor.

    The NT scriptures (or OT for that matter) do not explicitly speak to consensual, committed same-sex partnerships. It is a matter of debate among Christians who take into consideration the cultural context whether or not the prohibitions in scripture speak to this matter as we understand it today. Given the reality that committed followers of Christ who honour and take the authority of scripture seriously disagree on whether a committed same-sex relationship can be a faithful expression of Christian discipleship for same-sex oriented believers it would seem that the question of clear guidance isn’t quite as simple as many people would like to make it out to be.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello Sonia. You are correct that the word heresy is a strong one. Perhaps given the fact that I am called heretical on a regular basis, I have become more accustomed to it than most. Having said that, I do feel very strongly that a clear response needs to be articulated related to the statement that, in my understanding, communicates that a sexual minority person involved in a same-sex sexual relationship was either never a follower of Jesus or has fallen away from saving faith. This seems to me to be a clear statement about the potential for a sexually active sexual minority person to be justified – or in my preferred words – reconciled to God. This is what I take issue with so strongly. Our faith does not save us. Our faith affirms that we are saved. Our commitment to the journey of sanctification – in the variety of ways we understand that – does not save us. The potential for any human being to be reconciled to God is fully and completely the work of God through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To add anything to that is heretical. The apostle Paul said it this way to the believers in Galatia, “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?” (Galatians 3: 1-5) And in chapter 5: “You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” (verses 4-6) Paul is so impassioned about those who were trying to add to the work of Christ on the cross that he wishes those promoting such addition (in this case circumcision) would go all the way and castrate themselves. That is pretty strong language.

    If unrepentant sin could nullify the reconciliation accomplished through the cross of Christ, then humanity has no hope. We all live with unrepentant sin – and if one has the arrogance to challenge this – the arrogance alone is evidence of the truth of the statement.

    My statements regarding the accomplished work of Christ are not about homosexuality. They are about the core of the gospel.

    If I have misunderstood Restored Hope’s statements – then I will welcome dialogue about the efficacy of the cross and the power of the resurrection.

    (part 1)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Continued response to Sonia:

    On the matter of the priority on the struggle or fight against the experience of same-sex attraction and the goal of orientation change, it seems to me that these two things are collapsed together for RHM. Anne’s emphasis on the word “feelings” and her comment about there not being such a thing as a sexual minority both seem to affirm the perspective that same-sex attraction is an inclination or a temptation. While there seems to be room for those who do not experience significant shifts in the directions of their attractions, it seems that the goal is to bring such inclinations or temptations into submission without allowing for acceptance of the experience of a same-sex orientation. Given my understanding of their statements about justification and the connection between those statements and this priority – it does indeed seem to me that they are adding a prerequisite for sexual minority persons in order to experience reconciliation with God. But again, if I have misread the statements of RHM, then I am more than happy to have further conversation to bring clarity to what they are trying to communicate.

    The reality is that there is disagreement among deeply committed followers of Jesus on the question of whether a same-sex orientated person who commits themselves in faithful, covenantal relationship with another person of the same gender is acting in a sexually immoral manner. The gay Christians I know who have committed themselves to a partner or spouse have done so believing that their relationship is honouring to God. As strongly as people may disagree with them – they do not define their relationship as unrepentant sin. The assumption of RHM that they were either never Christians to begin with or that they have fallen from saving faith – despite their joyful reception of and faith in the accomplished work of Christ on their behalf is deeply problematic to me.

    The folks at RHM have very strong convictions that any expression of same-sex sexual orientation is immoral. So they have made very strong statements about this immorality having the potential to exclude or nullify “saving faith”. I assume they make these statements on the basis of their best reading of scripture and their commitments to follow Christ.

    In response, I will make strong statements to counter this understanding of the accomplished work of Christ that has secured our reconciliation with God. I am not a perfect interpreter of scripture – and so I acknowledge that I could be wrong. However, I do stand in a long line of Christian tradition that has fought and died to defend this understanding of the work of Christ.

    Of course, as followers of Christ we are called to live lives of obedience and to be constantly open to the need for repentance. But repentence and obedience arise out of our grateful response to receiving (believing) the true reality of what Christ has already accomplished on our behalf. We have nothing to add to that work. We simply respond out of gratitude.

    The reason I take this risk to articulate such strong convictions – when you correctly identify that New Direction is most commonly about inviting dialogue and navigating our diversity in generous and gracious ways – is because I believe that there is such a thing as a sexual minority person and that such persons have every opportunity to be receptive to the true reality that their life has already been fully caught up into the life of the risen Christ. This reconciliation is not dependent on the morality of their sexual lives. It is dependent on what Christ has already accomplished!

    Now while I do not typically communicate with such strong language, what is consistent with this post is my hope that this will open dialogue and conversation. It is perhaps more provocative than my typical posts – but the stakes are all that much higher.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sonia - finally in response to some of your questions about my theological starting point for reflections on human sexuality:

    Any theological reflection – including our theological reflections on human sexuality – must begin with God. So I don’t have any desire to empty the creation account of any profound content – but I do challenge the starting point for much of the theological assertions made about human sexuality. We must begin first with who God is. Then we can consider the implications of what God has said about humanity – of which the creation account is only one aspect. The Trinity reveals the intrinsic relational character of God. God has always existed in relationship. Human beings have been created in the image of God. This image is relational. We reflect God not merely as isolated individuals but as those called to be in relationship with others.

    This Trinitarian God found something that was not good in the perfect creation. It was not good that the human being was alone with no companion like him. In the Trinity we see a depth of intimacy that theologians have described as perichoresis or the “interpenetration” of the persons of the Trinity. This intensity of intimacy exceeds our imagination and apprehension. Any relational intimacy that humans might experience is only a foretaste of the perichoresis enjoyed within the relationship of Father, Son and Spirit.

    For many Christians, the pinnacle of human intimacy is the one flesh union shared in sexual intercourse between husband and wife in marriage covenant. My reflections on the perichoresis of the Trinity, however, have challenged me when reflecting on the reality that such intimacy is not in the shape of gendered complementary pair-bonding. God is not gendered. And God is not two, but three persons.

    As I have elaborated in previous posts, I think that challenging some of the assumptions about a creation order starting point opens up a whole different conversation about who we are as human sexual beings.

    ReplyDelete
  9. good article Wendy. My faith and morality are choices. My sexual orientation however isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Get yourself a copy of the book: The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert - an English professor's journey into Christian faith. It is by Rosaria Champagnen Butterfield (2012). Re-learn and get back to Reformed theological basics. Also, let me quote Butterfield in the first chapter of the book.

    "As a lesbian activist, I was involved in my gay community. I had drafted and lobbied for the university's first successful domestic partnership policy, which gives spousal benefits to gay couples. I had to put up with a lot of flack from the conservative Christian community for this. My life was busy and full, and I thought, moral. I was concerned with issues of morality, and even authored an article on the subject of gay and lesbian lives. I was an 'out' lesbian in the way that I am now an 'out' Christian. It would never occur to me to live my life in falsehood, and I had and have the kind of privileged jobs (then as a professor and now as a Christian wife) where I do not have to be 'careful' or closeted."

    Janet

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am quite familiar with Rosaria's story. One woman's journey, experience and discernment cannot answer the myriad of complex questions that are raised as we engage the whole of scripture, tradition, reason and experience. I stand by my contention that to add anything to the cross of Christ as necessary to live in the reality of the reconciliation with God that has been accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is heresy. John Calvin and the other Reformers would agree.

    ReplyDelete