A couple of months ago I watched the movie “Milk”. If you saw the movie, you will probably agree with me that it is not an easy movie to watch. Even though some of the explicit homosexual scenes were awkward for me to watch, the most difficult part for me to watch was the reaction of the “Christian community.” I was fairly young when all of this happened, but I recall Anita Bryant and other who didn’t know how to react to homosexuality, so they just decided to attack. Evangelical churches as a whole had the same reaction. More recently we have seen other prominant Evangelicals declaring that HIV/AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality. As a result, nearly anyone could go into a church and find acceptance and healing. For the homosexual, however, there was nothing more than condemnation.
I struggle with this. I have friends who are homosexual and I know that the last place they think that they could find love is in a church. If the church is to live into the missio Dei, we have to ask ourselves some difficult questions about the nature of the church and how it reacts to people who have differing perspectives and even lifestyles. I know what scripture says about homosexuality, and I am not trying to make light of that. I wish I had some easy answers to this, but I do not have easy answers to this discussion. I do know that we are to be the body of Christ and I know that the church is meant to be a redemptive community. I have attached an interesting video clip from a conservative Christian who struggles with these same issues. This clip is primarily a promotion for his book, but I invite you to watch it and give me your constructive ideas about the Church, the missio Dei, and ‘others’.
20 comments:
I would argue that the job of loving is not specific to Christians. Loving is the product of living an examined life, no matter what shape that life takes. But I liked what that guy said about truly listening to people and getting out of the habit of talking over each other. It's a hard thing to do when you're so sure you're right. But possible :)
In any case, I think that video is a great representation of what I understand missio Dei to mean.
David: I find the video to be void of full and complete acceptance. It would appear that the mission is to understand, accept the individual but not the behavior and to create a loving and caring attitude. Is the goal to change the behavior? I find these efforts to be patronizing. I believe God fully accepts the LGBT community and we must press for a marriage amendment so they can live their lives in the covenant of marriage and not outside that covenant. I like Garry Wills and his work on the Words of Jesus and how Jesus would respond to the LGBT community today. He would be in the midst of them as a hurt and oppressed community. Sex is tricky in evangelical circles made more complicated by our assumptions of what is right and what is wrong. We can be so hypocritical. God's grace covers us all and frankly given the complexities of the Kingdom homosexual behavior is probably the least of His/Her concerns.
James: Perhaps this is due to my evangelical background, but I have a hard time swallowing the idea that it would be in line with God’s priorities to “press for a marriage amendment” for LGBT’s. YES – I believe Jesus would be right in the middle of these communities, and in this way I believe Andrew and his organization are being the hands and feet and arms and heart of Christ in their ministry. However, Jesus also proclaimed the truth, even when it offended people, and the bible is clear when it comes to homosexual behavior. As Christians, I don’t see that we have a choice in the matter. I believe that we can love LGBT’s and still proclaim the kingdom message of freedom from sin. I don’t mean preach “at” them, but only that we don’t compromise the truth when it comes up and that we are available and willing when opportunities present themselves to speak that truth. I was thankful to be able to do this in a recent Facebook discussion with a former high school classmate who is part of this community. She has the same view of the church that Andrew’s video says many LGBT’s have – they are judgmental, etc. I was able to communicate to her that she and I disagree on what is moral behavior, but that I also disagree with Christians who are hateful about this. I told her that the church ought to be loving people – it is the number one commandment. And I was able to say that there is no excuse for not loving someone, just because you have different viewpoints. She appreciated my comments and was not defensive toward me at all. It was a huge blessing to me.
Michelle and other Evangelicals. I am an Evangelical but I have no patience for fundamentalism that seeks to proof text their way through scripture. If I embraced the logic of your analysis, we would all be going to hell because there is far more in scripture about poverty and injustice than there is about homosexual behavior. In fact, tell me how many passages speak to the specifics of homosexual behavior. I can site you over 1,000 passages related to concern for the poor. Further, you cannot rule out genetic disposition when it comes to sexual orientation. The science is beginning to be pretty solid on this front. It is sweet that Christians want to be able to love members of the LBGT community, what they need, however, is justice. A marriage amendment sanctions both in faith and in law a relationship. I would rather have sex in a relationship of marriage than out. However, thank you for weighing on this issue. It is these types of discussion that we must have and must pull these discussions "out of the closet." We must be frank with each other. I work with the gay community in all most all facets of my life. I don't need to justify their goodness or their evil - as we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. However, I don't need to change them. God wants a seeking heart that will give Love its greatest expression. I find that in the LGBT community, often more than in the Evangelical community. Anyway, thanks for responding and thank you David for letting us hijack your blog. Keep coming at me Michelle. Bless you.
Jim
Jim - I’d love to keep dialoging on this. :-)
So – I never did say anything about hell. Nor did I say that homosexuality is the only sin that needs to be addressed. I just struggle with the focus on “justice” that overlooks sin and even makes it o.k. I agree – we have ALL sinned. So proclaim it - don't condone it. I struggle, for example, with Christians who condemn drinking so much as a glass or wine with their meal on the basis that “the body is the temple of the Spirit” but who themselves have no qualms about downing a Big Mac and fries (or similar meals) on a regular basis. In the same way, I would not be exclusive about proclaiming that homosexuality is a sin. And yet, legalizing marriage between LGBT’s only condones a behavior that, no matter how few verses say it, is sin in God’s eyes. Genetic predisposition or not (some have a genetic predisposition for other sins as well – we live in a fallen world). I recognize in myself predispositions for certain behaviors that I have to discipline with God’s help. (I see those same predispositions in my kids - it's genetic.) I would never say that I am perfect – but I would readily admit that we all need God to set us free in these areas. Why would we exempt homosexuality from those things from which God can set us free?
Andrew Marin states his thesis, ministry philosophy from 1:58 – 2:20 of the video. I may be misinterpreting what he is saying. What I understand him to say is that people can agree to disagree about sin, but still experience the fullness of the Kingdom of God. I understand him to say that we can have different views of cancer. Some can think it is destructive while others are ok to think it is healthy. The medical field does its role when it correctly recognizes diagnoses and therefore, works towards healing. Confusion in diagnosis will not lead to healing. While this conversation focuses on homosexuality, misdiagnosis of any sin in destructive. This includes mine and your sin. So I ask, what is the orientation of love?
The Missio Dei and homosexuality is a conversation that challenges our concepts of grace. The following words are frequently used, but without definition or substance: love, acceptance, forgiveness, grace and tolerance.
I suggest defining grace as God facing our struggles. "When we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly." (Romans 5.6)
Grace is God enabling us to face our struggles and the struggles of others. Our fallen human nature does not naturally face our struggles. We naturally will avoid or attack.
A few years ago I moved into a liberal metropolitan. My unfortunate discovery was the sad fact of human nature that attacks or avoids.
I discovered the human nature of attack. The extreme liberal voice was matched with the extreme conservative voice. The video primarily addresses this issue by stating we need to stop fighting. I fully agree.
The other discovery of human nature is that of avoidance. This is the story of the Good Samaritan. Dr Wesley quotes Eisten in stating, "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." This is expressed in churches were we avoid the hard conversations. It is evident in Christians who emphasizes "my personal relationship with Jesus." Therefore, denying the power of the body of Christ for formation and transformation. It is evident in pastors’ attitudes that move every few years when the going gets tough. We pastors do not want to bleed for our congregations and communities we serve.
I live in a neighborhood where I know almost as many homosexual couples as heterosexual couples. One homosexual neighbor was raised in a prominent Nazarene church and is an alumni of a Nazarene university. My wife and children are at the bus stop each day with a homosexual couple and their two daughters. My children attend a school district that nurtures the homosexual agenda. Our immediate neighbors are homosexual. They are vocal advocates for the homosexual movement. One works for a national public radio. Living here brought me to a stark reality of the definition of a mission’s field. A place where the cultural world view is radically different then a Christian world view.
I confess I do not have a “sexy” evangelistic outreach program. Our family desires to love the person, but hate the cancer that destroys them. We do not want to attack or avoid but face the struggle. While writing this note, our homosexual neighbor knocked on our door to drop off food for the church sponsored neighborhood food drive. I do believe in a Holy God who went against all odds and cultural norms to heal a leper by reaching out and touching the person. The holiness of God transforms the broken, the lost and the hurting.
I struggle with the question of Missio Dei and homosexuality. I have more questions than answers. What is the Christian role towards homosexual who are advocates of their lifestyle? How do Christians live out the prophet, priest and king roles in relationship to this subject? Thank you for your feedback!
Michelle and James, thank you for this interesting discussion. You are not hijacking my blog. This is precisely why I posted this. My area of study is intercultural studies and a lot has been written and developed about the church's need to understand and enter into dialog with 'others' which normally means people who speak another language or live in hard to access areas of the world. It has only been recently that I have spoken to people in the LGBT community, not to evangelize them, but in order to know them as friends and to live what I believe to be true within those friendships. I am finding that the distance between them and the church,is enormous. The church often feels that it needs to fix people before they come into fellowship, and many in the LGBT commnunitty are confused about changing something that they know to be natural to them. There are many parrallels in this and the role of missionaries who go to other cultures. If the missionary does not take the time to understand and to love people first, their perceptions about people are often distorted. My argument here is not whether homosexuality is right or wrong. My question is whether the church or Christians have a higher responsibility to love than to judge. Missiologist Lesslie Newbigin said that the question "what will God do with pagans on the day of judgement" is the wrong question to ask. The right question is, "what are we called to be?" This is a very complex issue that carries a lot of cultural baggage. Thank you both for a balanced dialog - continue
These are insightful comments. Two disclosures related to my next comment. 1) I am currently in Nairobi, Kenya working the Kibera Housing Slum on a youth employment and empowerment summit and I am on my way into Swaziland where the cultural drivers that impact Christianity are huge. Here is my fundamental thesis. Love (always relational) is the defining criteria of all that we are meant to be. Yet, I love the Swazi people but Christians still practice "Bride Purchase", concurrent partners and relegate the women of the culture to vulnerable positions that make them even more vulnerable to HIV/AIDS and other diseases. I find nothing loving in practices that treat women as commodities. So, we preach the gospel and we work with the pastors about how Christ transcends culture. We don't tell them to use condoms (wish they would)and we don't tell them to circumcise (they should). What we should be telling them is that concurrent partners and care of women and children is at the heart of the gospel. Make your choices on enabling women to become all they can be. I too am less interested in the definitions of sin than I am in knowing the power of transforming grace and love. Disclosure 2) My 21 year old step-son is gay. He came out of the closet while a student at a Nazarene College. I have watched him over the years struggle with his sexual identity. I have heard him pray that God would heal him and make him straight. God is all for intimacy and love. Am I to tell him that the intimacy he longs for with another man is evil or wrong and outside of the law of God. He responds, then why do I feel so fulfilled when I can be intimate, even if it is with a man? To be accepted in the culture of the Church he must shut down his desire for intimacy or substitute it with a woman. Is that a loving thing to do to him or to the woman that might embrace him? The very thought of sex with a woman sends him rushing to the nearest place he can gag. This is a real issue in real time and space. I work in the HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment field both in the US and in Africa. Wrong-headed sex can be dangerous. Living an unfulfilled life is also dangerous. The critical issue is the harm he may cause himself or others. That is the standard by which we Christians must judge and embrace. Are my actions redemptive? Is the love I am showing enabling another to become all they can be. All other questions seem like ground clutter. More thoughts. I will soon be out of e-mail range for 24 hours, but I hope to keep the conversation going.
David, your following question confuses me. "My question is whether the church or Christians have a higher responsibility to love than to judge."
What do you mean by love? What do you mean by judge? Both words carry a complexity of subjective meanings? The word "judge" has so many negative connotations. It is frequently used as a reason not to speak truth into each other lives. As Wesleyans, we need to understand that love was effectively expressed in Wesley accountability groups.
I think a better question is to ask, "Will Christians and the church pick up the cross, recieve the sin of others, carry them and be crucified and be raised by God? The love expressed on the cross was the fullness of the judgment on sin and death. These two ideas are not opposing.
The church as long as I can remember has had the conversation about setting up love against judgment. For the church to be effective in the mission, we need to go deeper.
James, As a parent, I can relate to your strong feelings for your son. I want to respond to your specific statements, "Am I to tell him that the intimacy he longs for with another man is evil or wrong and outside of the law of God."
Yes, Wesleyan Christian often do well in expressing free will. However, we loose sight of the pre-ordained order God created. We loose sight of what I like to call macro or communual predestination. The beginning of Genesis expresses order and boundaries and it goodness. Outside this order comes self destruction.
You stated, "He responds, then why do I feel so fulfilled when I can be intimate, even if it is with a man?"
I remember Bart Campolo stating that sin is fun. He stated that a person is really "foolish" if you choose a sin that is not fun. He makes a great point. Just because it looks good, feels good, taste good does not mean it is good for you.
You stated, "To be accepted in the culture of the Church he must shut down his desire for intimacy or substitute it with a woman."
This is not about culture of the church, but God's predesigned order. The church should be a place that seeks to live within that order. This is a safe place. I like to say that the boundaries are like a fence around a playground next to a busy street. God creates boundaries so that we may enjoy the fullness of the playground without risking our lives chasing a ball across the street.
Dr. Wesley: I think that one of the big parts of the blessing I got out of my discussion with my former high school roommate was the fact that she helped me to understand a little better what her feelings and viewpoint were. Having been “raised” (not by my parents, but by my attendance from the age of 10) in a very conservative church (which I still love and have wonderful memories of), my initial attitude towards LGBT’s was one of moderate intolerance. But when I lived in the Freshman “arts” dorm in college at SMU, I was exposed to some things that made me uncomfortable! And I had to learn how to face that. I had to recognize and affirm their humanity as well. At this point, I have come to what I consider (and hope!) is a more mature viewpoint that says to these and others like them who have been judged by the church, “I want to understand your position and your feelings.”
I think that both extremes – unthoughtful condemnation as well as blanket acceptance – need modification. It seems there is a heavy swing in the direction of “justice” right now. I just feel like the pendulum needs to come back a little more toward center . . .
James: The situation with your stepson is indeed difficult. However, I need some clarification on something. When you say “I am less interested in the definitions of sin than I am in knowing the power of transforming grace and love” . . . what is that grace and love transforming? What is it making us into? The church is called to be a community that declares a different kingdom and a different lordship, and I can’t escape that this necessarily includes an ethical element. “God is all for intimacy and love,” but are all expressions of intimacy and love morally equal?
In the context of the “cross-cultural” discussion, I think that we do need to understand the mindset we wish to minister in and to. We cannot just barge into a context swinging our bibles and preaching condemnation on behaviors. But we also can’t lose sight of the direction we need to be moving in. Jonathan, I think you said it well – love and “judgment” do not have to be opposing forces. We need to listen, understand, and love. But God loves me enough to not leave me where I am. Shouldn’t we be willing to operate this same way (with the guidance of the Spirit)?
My heart goes out to the children of my homosexual neighbors. The children are the innocent victims. In the churches attempts to "love" the sinner, we often forget the innocent victims. Scripture teaches otherwise.
What is the churches role for these children? I believe there always needs to be a prophetic voice in the church. This voice needs not just speak down "judgment," but give hope to these children.
Jonathan: There is an assumption rooted in Augustinian/Calvanistic world view that we can actually know the preordained order created by God. Or for that matter that there is a preordained order from God. Fortunately, in the Arminian/Wesleyan tradition that thought was shattered when the dei potentia ordinata was replaced by the dei potentia absoluta. That is the absolute order or knowledge of God is a cheap substitute for the sovereign will of God that often is hidden in mystery and defies stereotypes and categories. The will of God manifests itself not in some abstract relativism, but in the concrete realities of one's journey. We are broken, scandelous humanity and the miracle of God's grace is that he finds us where we live not where we believe or in some ordered universe that makes sense. Luther and Wesley both confronted the dogmatics that insisted that they could know sin so clearly and rationally. Also, I never suggested that intimacy was about fun, but about fulfillment. Then again, I would hate to make the case that intimacy is not fun. Whlie I consider myself a Wesleyan, I am not convinced that he had everything right either. I find it interesting how much Calvanism has found its way into the theology of the Church. Not all bad, but from where I sit, seriously flawed. I am about to head out of communication for 24 hours. Look forward to more thoughts.
Michelle,
You bring an important talking point to the table, "cultural context" and where is the pendulum.
When I lived in Kansas City, MO the cultural pendulum generally leaned towards the attack of homosexuals.
I now live in Washington DC metro where the cultural pendulum is to attack anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong.
God's preordained order will stay the same no matter where we live. The church lives out three roles:
prophet, priest and king
Prophet - Beacon and advocate of truth
Priest - Be with and represent the people
King - Bring hope, change and transformation.
These roles of the church will stay the same. The role that recieves most emphasis will change depending on the cultural context.
James, you stated, "The will of God manifests itself not in some abstract relativism, but in the concrete realities of one's journey"
Love and Revelation: The will of God is expressed in the revelation of God. Yes, there is mystery in God's will. But to deny any knowledge of God's is to deny God as being Incarnational.
Love and Covenant: The will of God is expressed in the Covenant relationship God has with humanity. I agree with my "Calvinistic" Christian brother that denying predestination is to deny scripture. We must understand God's covenant with the people of Isreal as His will to reveal Himself to the world. The same is true through the new covenant, the role of the church as the bride of Christ. These roles and relationship are not defined by us, but by God. God has revealed them to us so that we may be faithful. However, God does not force us to be faithful, but God will always be faithful.
Evangelicals have defined God's will along the lines of popular culture: individualistically. This is a major reason why the church lacks a strong theology of the church.
Safe travels!
James stated, "That is the absolute order or knowledge of God is a cheap substitute for the sovereign will of God that often is hidden in mystery and defies stereotypes and categories."
Such a statement leads to ignorance and foolishness. It suggests that their is no truth. It suggests that all that we know, we really do not know. For example, a truth that is generally accepted is embracing diversity in relationships. Our culture embraces diversity in the workplace as the healthy norm. We can recognize that our prespectives are broadened. However, while we want diversity in the board room, homosexuals do not want it around the dining room table. This is inconsistent
The quoted logic allows for this inconsistency because it suggest real knowledge is hidden. But how can we argue for diversity in the workplace?
The church must be consistent, while not be Pharisaical
James: I don't think the church can press for legal recognition of the LGBT community, becasue that would be acceptance of their behavior. I will agree that the church has in the past refused to even engage in dialog with the community. The church was never called to full and complete acceptance of a sinner, but the full and complete acceptance of a sinner who wanted to stop sinning. My exposure has been that they do not wish to stop their current behavior, but wish for it to be accepted by society.
I agree that Jesus would love them, but he would also call for them to repent. Your statement makes me think you believe he would love them without judging their behavior as sinful. I don't think he would do that.
Thanks to all of you who have made this an interesting discusssion. Our discussion reflects the fact that this is a complex issue and as Christians we have very strong feelings about this. All indicators are that this will become an increasingly important issue for the church. In the past society in the U.S. reflected the values of the church (at least on the surface), and to go to church was advantageous for buisness and other social contacts. Church has centered around "place" and we held the standards to who was welcome or not welcome into the membership of that place. Sociologist, Robert Wuthnow has observed that since the 1950s spirituality has moved away from church 'a place where, but rather church as "a people who". What that means is that instead of church being a place where we stand at the door and measure who can come in or not, those who in the past had stood at the door, must now be the church that goes out and lives the life of the church in society. The judgement, therefore is on us. That is what I meant when I said that our primary calling (love not judgement) is to be Christian witness in society in such a way that we reflect the relational aspect of the Triune God, reaching out in love to those who are different than us. We are called to BE Christian first and foremost. I am not saying that I condone anything that is destructive to the relationship people have with God and with each other. I am saying that my vocation is to be Christian in a world that is looking for something authentic. If we declare people as sinners, and we do not reflect the nature of God ourselves - the bible has stronger words for us than any of those whom we perceive to be lost.
I am grateful for the video that I found and for the Marian Foundation for their ministry. I agree with James that this is not a complete acceptance, but I don't think it should be. As several posts have pointed out, somehow the church needs to bring the good news of the Gospel in dialog with sin. As a Wesleyan myself, I have difficulty with addressing this outside of love being the primary guide and rule (as Bill stated).
I wish I had an easy answer to this, but I don't. I do know that I have a lot of learning to do in order to follow the faith that I profess.
I simply wanted to say that I enjoyed reading these comments. Hypotheticals are so difficult and dangerous, so I will not wade into the conversation. I am not personally friends with any LGBT folks and therefore don't want to comment. Just wanted to say that I appreciated the thoughts from you all.
It seems obvious to me that there is emerging a culture or subculture of the LGBT community, replete with its own codes, contracts, and customs. I suppose I could be wrong, but if a particular world-view and hermeneutic is developed, posited, and championed by the LGBT community, then that world-view and hermeneutic must be also opened to the Gospel for critique and purification. The difficulty is in the fact that the Gospel comes to us through the hermeneutical methods of our own cultures. So, how can we lay our hermeneutics down to be illuminated by the Gospel?
We have to hear the Gospel through other hermeneutics.
I think this is the reason why these particular Christian communities talk past each other (conservative evangelicals and homosexuals). Each community presupposes the correct hermeneutic, as if we are capable of such a thing.
Until each community lays down its hermeneutic and world-view in front of each other in order for the Gospel to shed light on our cultural understandings of the Gospel, the frustration will continue.
It seems both communities need to come together and say, "I could be wrong," rather than attempting to win people to there sides. We need to worship together. We need to kneel together. We need Christ to speak through the other in order for us to see the insufficiencies in our cultural presuppositions. We need to lay aside all proofs and anecdotes and say, "I could be wrong, and I desire to be faithful."
I don't see this happening, and I'm certainly not involved in a dialogue like this (although I'd like to be), and so I am very much conflicted about this issue as well.
does this make any sense?
Post a Comment