This particular post is geared toward eliciting feedback from those who believe that homosexuality is not blessed by God, but are uncertain how to address the issue within church governance and their own congregations. However, I am also interested in hearing from people of all perspectives on how churches with conservative sexual ethics should address personal policy within their own fellowships.
I want your opinion. In recent discussions on Andrew Marin’s book Love Is an Orientation, as well as other posts on bridging the gap between the church and the GLBT community, there has been a recurrent question, “Yes, but how do we address the issue of homosexuality within the Church? Marin gives guidance for engaging the gay community at large, but what about church governance? How does this play out on a practical level? One commenter who is a pastor wrote: “People expect us to have policies on things—Can [same-sex] couples be pictured together in photo directories? Can someone in an active [same-sex] relationship lead a small group?” Then there are the heated discussions at the denominational level. For the past year, congregations within the Presbyterian Church (USA) have been voting on whether or not to open a door to gay ordination (in April the final tally upheld the “fidelity-chastity” clause). Additionally, top scholars from Yale and the like are publishing well-written arguments for the reconciliation of homosexuality and Christianity.
What is the appropriate response to all of this? Do we just close our eyes and sing Kumbaya in hopes that it all magically resolves on its own? Do we scowl and stick our tongues out at those who don’t agree with us? I want to know what you think. Below are some of my own random questions and thoughts to get the discussion going:
What assumptions do we make about other Christians?
In the last post I mentioned a research project in which I interviewed gay affirming Christians with the hope of understanding how some people reconcile homosexuality and Christianity. I quickly realized my assumptions about other people’s worldviews caused miscommunication and frustration. I assumed other Christians viewed God and Scripture the same way I did. But the people I spoke with had a variety of definitions for the term Christian. When I asked one interviewee what the term meant, she indicated she had never broken any of the Ten Commandments. Another interviewee was an avid fan of Marianne Williamson’s A Return to Love—a book that utilizes Christian terminology to describe the Eastern philosophy found in A Course In Miracles. Yet other interviewees ascribed to Progressive Christianity, a movement that believes many paths lead to God and the Bible is not the only sacred text. Some also agreed with Bishop John Shelby Spong’s suggestion of a non-theistic Christianity. Still other interviewees reported an evangelical understanding of the term Christian, believing that Jesus died for the sins of the world.
My point? It became apparent that the question of homosexuality was secondary to the question of how each of us conceptualizes God, Scripture, and the Christian life. Before we even engage in a conversation about homosexuality with a fellow Christian, it is helpful to understand what a person means by that term. How do they picture God? What role does Scripture play in guiding their life? What is that person’s basis for ethics? If I assume someone has the same definitions as I do, I end up talking past that person rather than truly understanding where they are coming from.
What is our motivation for telling another person our views on homosexuality?
You can tell a lot about a person’s motivation for speaking up on the issue of homosexuality by the emotion they exhibit. Are they angry? Sad? Happy? Many conservatives will say they “love” gay people by “telling them the truth.” But these same individuals often seem agitated when speaking truth. Isn’t anger an odd way to express love? Why are those who rail against the “gay agenda” so angry? Is it not because they are offended? Those who become angry in defense of their position (including those in the GLBT community) are primarily concerned with Self. Many conservatives tout the mantra “Protect our families!” The focus is on how one’s own community will benefit if the other camp conforms. This typically results in efforts to force compliance by enacting laws.
In contrast, what emotion do we exhibit when our closest friends are engaged in behavior we believe is hurtful? Doesn’t it break our hearts? Don’t we fret about their welfare? We grieve. We try to reason with them. Rather than manhandling our friends into compliance so we don’t have to put up with their offense, we, instead, long to see transformed lives. Our focus is not on Self, but on Other. We want what is best for our friends, and we know their well-being rests on true repentance. True repentance is not simply behavioral compliance—the Pharisees excelled at that—rather it is a change of heart and mind. This brings us to another question:
What causes us to have a change of heart?
Think about your own life experiences. How do you react when someone yells at you? What if somebody lectures at you without any interest in your perspective? How do you feel if someone assumes the worst about your motives? Clearly, none of us would be persuaded to see things differently if treated this way, and yet conservatives do this all the time when discussing homosexuality. This is because many Christians are not concerned about the well-being of the gay community as much as they are interested in venting their irritation. We want others to conform so we don’t have to put up with their behavior—not because we are heartsick over a gay person’s well-being.
God said, “Come now, let us reason together. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). Let us reason together. Isn’t this how hearts and minds are changed?
How are we to treat other Christians we believe are unrepentant?
What do we do when we believe another Christian is engaged in sin and they are not responsive to our efforts to reason with them? Do we shun them and treat them like pariahs (not something I recommend!). Jesus suggests, “Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector”—that is, an unbeliever (Matthew 18:15-17).
How did Jesus treat tax collectors?
What is the purpose of shared values in community?
Some seem to believe that the Church should not enforce shared community values. We should let everyone do according to their own conscience. If God tells someone homosexuality is okay—who are we to question that? After all Christianity is not about rules and regulations, it’s about love. If we just love each other it will all work out in the end. Right? I don’t know of many groups that operate on this kind of mentality. If you show up for an AA meeting, you will be expected to support the group’s goal of sobriety. If you go to Soulforce’s online discussion forum, you will be expected to follow the rules or else get booted. This includes not sharing views that suggest homosexuality is sin. And I’m sure if you signed up for the local Rotary Club, they would have certain expectations of you as well. Virtually every group has shared community values; those who cannot agree to these values are usually limited in their ability to participate.
Community is what makes the Christian walk possible. I need to be part of a local church body that reinforces my values on traditional sexual ethics. A church cannot encourage me “day after day as long as it is called Today” if they support a position that makes it harder for me to live out my convictions. This is also why gay affirming churches exist—others want to be in a community that supports same-sex relationships. I would not be elected for leadership positions at most (if not all) Metropolitan Community Churches simply for holding the theological views I do. This doesn’t mean these churches are bigoted; rather, there is nothing inherently mean-spirited about having group values and maintaining them.
What do we expect from leaders in the church—including lay leaders?
If shared values are a natural and integral part of most communities, how are those values maintained? Is it not through leadership? Paul instructs Timothy to “set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity” (I Tim. 4:12). What happens when that is compromised? Recently, I referred to a discussion at Jesus Creed regarding an actual situation where a member of a worship team wanted to remain in the band despite his intentions to date another man. He agreed he would step down if he “crossed the line” and had sex with his boyfriend. It was perceived by some that homosexual dating, as long as intercourse does not occur, is benign. But what about the person in the pew who is struggling with homosexuality? What is he to think when he sees a member of the worship team going out on a date with his boyfriend? And what message does this send to the rest of the congregation? How does this affect the maintenance of shared community values?
What would a new model of engagement look like? How do we practice both grace and truth?
I see a lot of folk reacting to the Religious Right (including me!). Seeker sensitive churches don’t want to talk about homosexuality for fear of looking like hate-mongers and scaring away potential seekers. Younger Christians know there is something unChrist-like about the anger and self-protective attitudes of ultra-conservatives and so throw the baby out with the bath water. No one seems to know what grace and truth looks like. There aren’t many examples of it. What would it mean to speak truthfully about homosexuality, while not fixating on it, and yet not avoiding it? What would it look like to talk about sexual ethics apart from the culture war? And what would this mean for practical church governance and ministry?
