Comments on: Conclusion: Love Is an Orientation

By: Sarah

Sarah — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:51:00 +0000

So I just finished this book today. I’m a little slow I know but life happens.

I am a really big fan of the ending how Marin goes through those close ended questions and gives us examples of ways to elevate the conversation.

It was a really good book and I’m glad I read it.

By: Di5

Di5 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:30:06 +0000

You just answered AM using the words -how sin affects us. That I think went to the heart of that statement “gut wrenching.” The things I was remembering, conversations, losses, and I kept thinking of time. Time. I want their lives effectively moved to be in His blessings before time…. I wish I could know about His plans for them. What about the guilt and anxiety, that comes and goes?

By: Karen K

Karen K — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:20:46 +0000

Hi dkendall–thanks for leaving a comment. I think Marin’s point is that we sometimes confuse confrontation with boldness. Some Christians think that being bold means to be “in your face” and that is not necessarily what defines courage. Rather, he suggests a more productive boldness that engages with people–not just shouts at people. Does that make sense?

As for any kind of confrontation–Marin doesn’t really address this. Rather he is focused on how to get past the usual Religious Right adversarial stance that so often impedes ministry to the gay community. Many conservatives don’t see gay people as people–but rather this faceless mass to protest against.

By: dkendall

dkendall — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:14:17 +0000

I’m sorry, I haven’t read the book yet. I’m confused by the “be bold” commitment along with the idea that it “takes more courage to get involved in people’s lives than to hold picket signs”. Maybe the relative allusion to picket signs, which is highly confrontational, is throwing me off. Does Marin suggest that this “be bold” commitment is on any level confrontational?

By: Karen K

Karen K — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:12:21 +0000

Jeff–I like your suggestion of a follow-up post. I will plan to do that some months from now. So far it looks like:

Jeff–visit the LBGT center, start a discussion group at church.

Amazing Grace–plans to self-disclose to two leaders at her church about her SSA and discuss what their church can better do to address the issues.

Sarah–talking with her pastor about doing some book discussion and active implementation in her church and associated churches (is that right?)

Di–ask her church to get more involved in helping with referrals from a referral ministry and engage in prayer for others, as well as continue to process Marin’s thoughts

Me–get more involved in the LGBT community, particularly on the Duke campus. There has been some discussion forums recently on the topic at the divinity school and I am interested in talking to folk involved in that, etc.

Nate–seeking to dialogue compassionately with a new gay friend on spiritual matters. (Nate where are you at with Marin’s book and his suggestions–anymore thoughts?)

Others out there? Let us know what your plans are–then we’ll have a follow up post sometime late fall and see what has transpired with people’s experiences. Maybe I can get e-mails from folk and post a collage of stories/experiences.

On another note–Jeff you mentioned that the book is impacting you in several ways including your leadership of a support group and how you interact etc. Would you be willing to share more specifically what you are processing and how that is impacting your approach?

Di–thanks for sharing more of your thoughts. As with any book, there are always things I might conceptualize differently, but overall I really like Marin’s book. As for the biblical passages, I understood that he wasn’t trying to do biblical apologetics on homosexuality in those chapters. His purpose was to remind us that those same passages also point to bigger picture theological themes that affect all people. He is basically saying, look, we are all sinners, we are all on the same level playing field and let’s see this as a spiritual journey that we explore together with gay people, rather than paternalistically standing superior to gay people and pointing out their flaws, etc–which is precisely how many Christians use those passages against those who are gay–as passages of condemnation etc. Does that make sense? He is not negating biblical apologetics, he is just saying there is more to the conversation. He is expanding the conversation to a broader picture.

You mentioned that the book was “gut wrenching” sometimes. Can you share a little more about that? I appreciate your willingness to engage with it and process it even if you didn’t always agree with all of it.