Yesterday brought out some strong opinions about whether or not the church can forge a third way. This idea of third way is a way of acknowledging that Christians differ in their conclusions about particular matters and seeks to move forward together despite the tensions that arise from such disagreement. Ken Wilson, a Vineyard pastor in Ann Arbor, Michigan, speaks about a third way in his recent book, “A Letter to My Congregation: an evangelical pastor’s path to embracing people who are gay, lesbian, and transgender in the company of Jesus.” In our neck of the woods, The Meeting House speaks of embracing a third way on the matter of same-sex relationships.
What third way and generous spaciousness have in common is the recognition of our diversity and the desire to prioritize living together in unity rather than demanding uniformity. Generous spaciousness actually suggests that it is spiritually formational to welcome some of these tensions and learn to respond with maturity, grace, humility, mutuality, patience, and a willingness to deal with conflict, to forgive, and to persevere in loving each other.
A pastor I met at the GCN conference in January who attended my workshop on generous spaciousness has made some serious waves. Danny Cortez is a pastor of a Southern Baptist congregation in California. He shares how his views on homosexuality changed, how his son came out, and how he navigated sharing this with his congregation. On May 18 his congregation voted to keep him on as pastor. Some folks left the church. On May 29, John Shore posted a video of Danny sharing with his congregation and a video of Danny’s son, Drew.
On June 2, Al Mohler, president of the Southern Bapstist Theological Seminary, wrote a post entitled, “There is No “Third Way” – Southern Baptists Face A Moment of Decision (and so will you)”. In his post, Mohler says, “There is no third way on this [the gay] issue … the issue is binary. A church will recognize same-sex relationships, or it will not. A congregation will teach a biblical position on the sinfulness of same-sex acts, or it will affirm same-sex behaviors as morally acceptable. Ministers will perform same-sex ceremonies, or they will not.”
John Shore then posted a rebuttal entitled, “Al Mohler and the Southern Baptists’ big gay lie.” In this post, Shore agrees with Mohler on “the unviability of a “third way” when it comes to relationships between the church and LGBT people.”
Clearly, Mohler and Shore vehemently disagree with one another about WHY a third way is not an option. Mohler says that Cortez’s church “has rejected the clear teachings of Scripture, the affirmations of its confession of faith, and two millennia of Christian moral wisdom and teaching.” In a post from 2012, Shore says, “The Christian/LGBT issue is a moral issue. And moral issues are by definition about right and wrong. The Christians on one side of this debate are claiming that, in the eyes of God, those on the other side are less than human.”
Tony Jones, a long-time leader in the emerging church conversation, has said, “What I’m saying is that a church or an organization can study the issue in theory, and they can even do so for years. But this isn’t really a ‘third way’ or a ‘middle ground.’ Instead, it is a process. And at some point, that process has to end and practices have to be implemented. At that point, there’s no third way. You either affirm marriage equality in your practices, or you do not.”
Ultimately, on the right and the left, there is agreement that this is a binary issue.
Wilson and Cortez, both pastors, are seeking to nurture generous spaciousness where people can agree to disagree, extend grace to one another and withhold judgment. Mohler would say that because people have left Cortez’s church that proves that a posture of generous spaciousness is ineffective. Shore would say generous spaciousness is ineffective because it offers shelter to those who view sexual minority persons as less than human in God’s eyes.
As a moral issue, it is true that while one can live in the tension of uncertainty for a long, long time, most people will feel compelled to come to some sort of clear resolution. And this works in the theoretical. But in real life, it seems that things are much more complex and messy than that. First of all, the majority of folks in any given congregation are making a decision about a matter that does not affect their own personal life in the sense of needing to make a personal decision about whether to be or not be in a same-sex relationship. They may have dear loved ones for whom this is a personal decision, and so the matter is personal to them, but it is not one they need to decide for their own life. To my best understanding, Mohler, Shore, and Jones are all married men with wives. They do not need to discern whether or not they will enter a same-sex relationship. But what about those who DO need to decide whether a same-sex relationship is a faithful option?
Well – here’s the rub. Gay Christians are making a variety of decisions, discerning a number of options, and choosing to live out their discipleship in different ways. Would Shore really argue that a gay Christian committed to celibacy views themselves as less than human in God’s eyes? It would seem that gay Christians, as they interpret, discern, and decide differently, need the generous spaciousness that allows them to live consistently with their conscience. It might seem that it isn’t so clear cut, so black and white as the far right and the far left might want to make it out to be.
People who have read my writing know that I have spent a lot of time reflecting and considering Romans 14 as a model of disputable matters. Those on the right would say, this cannot be a disputable matter because the bible is clear and anything that does not fully condemn same-sex relations is in rebellion to the authority of Scripture. Those on the left would say, this cannot be a disputable matter because it is a matter of justice and anyone who does not fully accept same-sex relations as celebrated and blessed by God fails to affirm the value, dignity, and humanity of LGBT people. You would find gay Christians in both of those groups. And that is what is so consternating and humbling for me. And that is why I chafe at the talk of binary – because somehow the binary doesn’t fit for the very people for whom the most is at stake.
Scripture makes concessions to our humanity by creating space for our conscience. I first memorized I Corinthians 10: 23 as, “Everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial”. The Message says it this way, “Looking at it one way, you could say, “Anything goes. Because of God’s immense generosity and grace, we don’t have to dissect and scrutinize every action to see if it will pass muster.” But the point is not to just get by. We want to live well, but our foremost efforts should be to help others live well.” Romans 14: 5 says, “Or, say, one person thinks that some days should be set aside as holy and another thinks that each day is pretty much like any other. There are good reasons either way. So, each person is free to follow the convictions of conscience.” And the text goes on, “None of us are permitted to insist on our own way in these matters. It’s God we are answerable to—all the way from life to death and everything in between—not each other. That’s why Jesus lived and died and then lived again: so that he could be our Master across the entire range of life and death, and free us from the petty tyrannies of each other. So where does that leave you when you criticize a brother? And where does that leave you when you condescend to a sister? I’d say it leaves you looking pretty silly—or worse. Eventually, we’re all going to end up kneeling side by side in the place of judgment, facing God. Your critical and condescending ways aren’t going to improve your position there one bit.”
What if these questions of faithful discipleship for sexual minority persons are less about authority and more about interpretation? I know people with various perspectives who all hold the Scriptures to be authoritative for their lives. What ends up being significantly different is their starting points, their emphasis in interpretation, and their willingness to consider historical and cultural context in their discernment process.
And what if we didn’t allow these questions to force us into a win-lose proposition when we consider what is just? Are celibate gay Christians being unjust to themselves? Even if you think so, how audacious and condescending to make that kind of declaration.
Generous spaciousness isn’t a moral statement. It is a way of being together. It acknowledges that for a lot of reasons, including both legitimate and questionable ones, followers of Jesus land in different places on these questions. This reality isn’t likely to go away any time soon. So generous spaciousness makes room for people to wrestle, to discern, to change their mind, to clarify their beliefs and values, to sustain living in alignment with their convictions, and to follow their conscience. The only way this can thrive is if people have confidence in entrusting one another to the leading of the Holy Spirit. This frees all of us from argument, persuasion, and anxiety. Instead of trying to change or control each other, we can be focused on our shared love for Christ and putting our energy into loving each other. Not just the Hallmark kind of love. But the costly, blood, sweat, and tears kind of love. The kind of love that grieves with each other, celebrates with each other, moves heavy furniture on hot, humid days, cooks vegan for the potluck, listens deeply, bites one’s tongue, extends the benefit of the doubt, chooses to trust, cultivates patience, extends kindness, corrects with gentleness, and intentionally finds concrete characteristics to affirm and encourage. Generous spaciousness keeps on making room for the other.
A pastor asked me recently how far generous spaciousness could go. Following Jesus’ model, I turned the question back to the pastor asking what they thought might be the way to discern this. The pastor said that it likely had to be about morality. That morality would determine the limits of generous spaciousness. I found that so interesting. For all of our talk about Jesus, about story, about relationship, about justice, when we feel the anxiety of “how far will this go?” or “we’re sliding down the slippery slope” we return to the rulebook of “do’s” and “don’t’s”. I suppose that is where we feel safe. When we have clarity. When we acknowledge a binary and make our decision. “This is where we’re putting the stake in the ground.”
My response to this pastor was that generous spaciousness is extended to anyone who has a demonstrable desire to draw near to Jesus Christ in the company of fellow pilgrims, who is willing to listen deeply and respectfully to others, and who is committed to do their absolute best to do no harm in the community. And even here, we have those who are post-Christian who are not wanting to draw near to Christ particularly – but who do want to engage in community recognizing that the majority of people are committed to Jesus Christ. And for those who want to listen deeply and respectfully and are committed to do no harm, they are welcome.
Risky – yes. Challenging – yes. Life-giving – yes. Smells like Jesus – yes.
So while I understand the reality that a time of decision is coming where denominations, congregations, and individual Christians may need to articulate where they land, I beg to differ that generous spaciousness cannot be an option.
In some communities it will seem that the weight is on the right, that the official view is that marriage is between one man and one woman. In these communities generous spaciousness challenges others to acknowledge and make room for those who believe that God blesses same-sex relationships. For the straight people in this situation, that might seem manageable. A commitment to agree to disagree, extending grace and withholding judgment. For a gay couple, this will be much more challenging. So, who would do it? Again, here’s the rub. Gay Christians are doing precisely this. They are attending welcoming but not affirming (some attempt at third way) churches. Why? Because they want to be in a community with vibrant worship, good teaching, focus on missions, committed to poor etc. and that is more important to them than the specific position on same-sex marriage. Being in such a place likely means that their leadership opportunities are at some point limited. Perhaps a partnered gay person cannot be in an ordained position. And perhaps this is something that the gay couple feels they can navigate – perhaps for a season. What I hear from gay Christians is that the most important things are that they feel at home, that they belong, that they are loved, that there is room for dialogue, that their convictions are respected, that they will have some opportunity to use their gifts, and that they have God’s peace about being there. Sounds like some good fruit to me.
In some communities it will seem that the weight is on the left, that the official view is that God blesses committed relationships regardless of gender. In these communities generous spaciousness challenges others to acknowledge and make room for those who believe that gender complementarity is a faithful interpretation of Scripture in regard to committed relationships. For the straight people in this situation, that might seem manageable. A commitment to agree to disagree, extending grace and withholding judgment. For a gay Christian committed to celibacy, this will be much more challenging. So, who would do it? I know celibate gay Christians who are in community where the majority of people hold affirming views. This might feel like the safest place for them to simply be honest about who they are. Maybe it is the place where they feel most at home in terms of worship, mission, teaching etc. As the gay Christian community continues to grow and mature, celibate gay Christians can often feel like a minority within a minority. This isn’t an easy place to be. The truth is, people need to live in alignment with their convictions because that is what they have discerned God asking of them. They need to live consistently with their conscience. I have encountered celibate gay Christians who navigate loving and supportive relationships with other gay Christians who are partnered. To me, this is a beautiful expression of Christian unity. It doesn’t come easily but is sustained by love for Christ and love for one another. The church could learn a LOT from this. I should also add that celibate gay Christians are also living their lives in a variety of ways that may challenge preconceived notions. You might want to check out, “A Queer Calling” a blog by a celibate couple.
I believe room can be given for some understanding of disputable matters and the role of conscience in the life of a follower of Jesus within a given fellowship. In a congregation, yes, there will be some degree of binary in terms of the dominant belief concerning same-sex relationships. But the actual life of a community isn’t that black and white. Because community isn’t theoretical. Community is real people. People with different levels of theological education, different experiences, different personalities and ways of processing information, different generations, different cultural backgrounds, and different influences. Diversity is a given. And I think the church will experience diversity in responding to the question of same-sex marriage for some time to come. So in the meantime, generous spaciousness offers a way to journey together.
Efforts to live a third way, to nurture generous spaciousness, are most often envisioned by pastors, not theologians or ethicists. Pastors on the ground, dealing with the motley crew that is their congregation – who they love warts and all. Nurturing generous spaciousness that acknowledges diverse perspectives on the question of same-sex marriage will likely result in some people leaving – folks who can only process this matter in a black and white manner. This is painful. At the same time, those folks aren’t leaving the faith. They’re going to go find another church that is more black and white on the issue. That’s okay. There is no perfect church. No one has the whole truth or the perfect interpretation. We are all parts of the body of Christ. And we are all completely dependent on the finished work of Jesus Christ to redeem the mess that we inevitably make despite our best efforts to live in grace and truth. The miracle is that God’s strategy was to build his kingdom through the church – and through the working of the Spirit – some good is actually done in the world. Can we not rejoice when someone we disagree with on same-sex marriage works to feed the poor? Can we not sing the hymn, “Great is Thy Faithfulness” with the one we disagree with? Can we not celebrate a family coming to faith through the witness of someone we disagree with? If we can, we are living generous spaciousness.
In challenging binary walls of hostility, in welcoming the other with whom we disagree, in committing to the hard work of being family together, I believe we are responding to Jesus’ high priestly prayer:
“The goal is for all of them to become one heart and mind—
Just as you, Father, are in me and I in you,
So they might be one heart and mind with us.
Then the world might believe that you, in fact, sent me.
The same glory you gave me, I gave them,
So they’ll be as unified and together as we are—
I in them and you in me.
Then they’ll be mature in this oneness,
And give the godless world evidence
That you’ve sent me and loved them
In the same way you’ve loved me.”
Wendy: Thank You. You have a beautiful wisdom and you share a generous and gracious embrace for all of us who love and desire to follow Christ. What is it that unites us? It isn’t really hard to see. We all look in the mirror and do some honest self examination and say ‘Thank You God for loving me – just as I am. Thant you for leading me in your way. Help me to love like you.’
Doing my own bit of procrastinating by posting here… as much as I don’t like to admit it, my thinking is probably more binary on the left. For me, as a post-Christian, the issue is about trust. If I can’t trust you (“you” referencing a community) with my joy, then how could I ever trust you with my pain? I could never, I don’t think, commit myself to a community that could not honestly and fully celebrate our relationship. What if our marriage needed help? What if I wanted/needed help strengthening it? Could I trust the motives of those who secretly might be hoping God would break us up? It doesn’t sound like “the third way” (from the brief description here) really offers the same opportunity to thrive for LGBT couples (non-celibate or otherwise). Does that “third way” even THINK about the kind of pressure they are putting on an LGBT couple? Sure, some couples might be wiling to tolerate that, but for long-term? Even in times of deep personal crisis? The reason civil marriage rights are so important to us is so that when tragedy comes we have financial/legal supports in place to prevent life challenges from becoming outright disasters. What I think “the third way” isn’t acknowledging is the LGBT couples’ need for emotional/communal/spiritual supports that go beyond a day-to-day, work relationship, agree-to-disagree attitude. Sure, when everything is fine who can’t deal with a little grit – but what happens when a spouse dies and that daily level of grit gets ground into your heart’s pain? Does the LGBT couple get the same level of support and comfort that a hetero couple gets? And I would really want “third way” proponents to THINK VERY CAREFULLY about how that question gets answered before offering a glib “yes.” Too many Christians in too many places have used the word “love” to mean things quite the opposite with regard to LGBT.
I’ve also commented before that I have deep concerns regarding celibate gay Christians… I don’t think I’m being audacious and condescending by wondering if persons walking that path are doing so because they genuinely wish to, or if they are feeling forced into self-torture by (what to my mind is) a heartless and unforgiving theology. I honestly think that celibacy is a deeply personal choice and that very, very few people are actually suited to that kind of life. Mandatory celibacy for LGBT has been so pervasive a prescription for our community that I don’t think it is unreasonable to consider that many of the gay Christians making that choice are actually doing so in a way that is more self-destructive than not. If anything, I wish churches would be ultra-cautious about recommending that life choice to LGBT. Support it? ONLY if the same standard for hetero celibacy is applied (which in my mind, means allowing for the possibility of marriage and relationships). But that’s me.
Hey Brian – I understand why you would be more binary left. I can accept that this is most appropriate given your journey.
A few thoughts: I think we all need to have multiple communities/circles of support in our lives. I’m not sure any one community can meet all of our needs for support. A gay couple attending a “welcoming but not affirming attempting third way” church likely need other supportive gay couples in their lives. Some gay Christians I know attend more than one church – because the different communities meet different needs (and of course I know straight people who do the same for similar reasons).
Again, being a Canadian, none of my comments in the post are about civil marriage equality. That is a given in Canada – and I don’t think any church attempting to live out a third way would be opposed to such civil matters.
I think you are in a better position to comment on celibate gay Christians than I am as a mainly straight gal. At the same time, any one of us needs, I think, to exercise some humility in describing some one else’s journey. And I agree, consistency with heterosexual individuals committed to celibacy should be a given. I also agree that there may well be a lot of Christians who choose celibacy energized by shame and fear – that I think is inconsistent with the liberating good news of the gospel. BUT …. that certainly isn’t true for ALL gay Christians who have chosen celibacy. I know a good number of folks who have intelligently and with spiritual maturity and healthy self-acceptance chosen celibacy – and I find myself wanting to ensure that they are not painted with the same brush as those who may have high levels of internalized homophobia.
I also hear you on not wanting “a glib yes”. Some of the churches that I’ve worked with that are sincerely trying to nurture generous spaciousness have been extremely intentional in the process. And part of that intentionality is building true, deep, and lasting relationships where love is a tangible expression – where grief is shared as well as celebration. So I have seen, in action, the kind of support that you speak of a gay couple potentially needing. Most Christians who remain in the tensions of living a third way (rather than leaving for a more black and white certainty in another church) are relationally all in – the diversity may come in their wrestling over interpretation – and often where there is difference in interpretation there is also grief – because they heart’s desire is for there to be agreement from a relational perspective. Does that make sense? Relationally people may want to be fully affirming of the gay couples they love – but their conscience convicts them regarding a traditional view of marriage. We often call this cognitive dissonance. Some people end up resolving this by eventually shifting to an affirming theological view. But others, continue to hold to traditional views while at the same time being as practically supportive of their gay friends as they would any other friends. Those who would call this compromise will have already left this place of tension – but those who remain – do so because they genuinely believe that ALL people are welcome in God’s family and ALL people are to be loved in community.
Hi Wendy!
Some thoughts about your thoughts: I like that you stress **relational** in so much of your writing. It would probably be fair to say that 99% of the negativity I face as a gay man is relational (the other 1% being internalized homophobia brought on by dysfunctional relationships).
The loss I felt most deeply when I walked away from faith was that of community. I never found another home in which I could speak in one voice with all my voices – the place church once was. Instead my life has become an incredibly complex Venn diagram of dozens of (sometimes barely) overlapping circles. It never occurred to me that this might actually be the norm. I thought it was just me.
It’s a lot harder to maintain/nourish all those Venn diagram connections than the built-in all-in-all I grew up in. I’m not very good at it. Sometimes I wonder/worry about the future – Mom’s church community has been looking out for her (“to visit widows in their trouble”) because they are connected to her. I don’t have those kind of connections and wonder/worry what that means about how I will thrive in old age. How do you manage your “Venn diagram?”
When I brought up civil rights it wasn’t meant to be a comment on a church stance regarding them. Mostly I was trying to make a comparison and stress a sense of urgency – in the same way an LGBT couple/family needs to create legal/financial protections for themselves, so also the need to create spiritual/emotional protections/supports. I see the “welcoming but not affirming” stance as being deliberately harmful in that regard. It would make sense that a gay couple attending that sort of congregation would need to seek out other sources of support. My rhetorical question about that – “why should they have to?”
Finally, I suppose I’m little less leery if a community has mixed feelings about who I am as a gay man if they are able to treat me AS IF they were fully affirming and supportive. It’s just that under situations of stress I’m not sure how fully I could trust the AS IF.
Brian – to some degree I think most people are dealing with various Venn diagrams in their systems of support – but some are more convoluted than others. Some are fairly easily navigated and managed. Others are exhausting to maintain. The built-in all-in-all that you refer to has benefits and draw-backs. The drawbacks include being so insular you are not enriched by diversity, difference, and being challenged in your assumptions. So I actually think that having multiple layers of a support system in one’s life is pretty important.
I agree with your “Why should they have to?” question. However, in these types of situations, gay Christians acknowledge the reality, choose to enter it, and accept that they will need to bolster that experience of community with other more affirming expressions of community. In an ideal world they shouldn’t have to. But in the world we find ourselves in, for perhaps a variety of reasons, people do choose to embrace imperfect and limited communities. Perhaps as you yourself said, how we are treated by people goes a long way. And in third way / generous spaciousness churches people tend to be open and tangibly loving.
Trust is such a challenging human reality. I’m not a philosopher – so I wouldn’t stake everything on this thought – but it has often occurred to me that much of the violence, hurt, and vengeance in the world arises because trust is so easily broken. In a world where everyone was perfectly and completely trustworthy – I don’t think we would experience violence. In my own life, trust has been a huge issue. But I also find, that as I pursue personal wholeness and maturity the fragility of trust must be met with the will to risk. Sometimes that risk blows up and I get hurt again. But sometimes that risk pays off in ways I wouldn’t have expected. Now clearly, with experience and maturity we have better discernment about which risks to take. But …. they are still risks.
I believe God knows intimately how hard it is for humans to trust – especially those of us who’ve been hurt and rejected. Jesus felt that pain of that when he was enduring the agony of the garden and his disciples fell asleep. You can hear the pain in his voice when he calls them out for not being able to keep watch with him. So I believe God is merciful to those of us who find it really hard to risk and to trust. He is compassionate and patient – and sometimes we discover special grace to take one small step forward to risk again.
What is so important is that God honors our choice. So if we choose to only place ourselves in situations we believe/hope will not hurt us – that’s ok. That is our choice. I do not in any way fault a gay Christian who would go to an affirming church by somehow saying, “Oh you really need to go and participate in generous spaciousness with a church that is living in tension on this matter.” Not at all. But, for those gay Christians who choose to be in a community that embraces diversity and the values of generous spaciousness, I offer my support, encouragement and prayers – and also will likely advice them to ensure that they have some additional supports in their lives where there isn’t tension – where they can just relax. And frankly, our hope is that our ND community is that for people.
In some ways, I do think generous spaciousness tends to lean more toward the “left” position in the traditional binary. This is because that position is inherently more permissive, where as it’s polar opposite is inherently restrictive. To allow space for LBGT people to make their own choices about how to live out and express their sexuality and gender is also a permissive act.
Where I do appreciate generous spaciousness — and even find it challenging at times — is the call to respect the choices of those gay individuals who choose lifelong celibacy and possibly lifelong singleness. We as a society don’t always do very well at being critical of the societal pressure that may bear on a particular choice vs. individuals’ right and ability to make those choices because they decide it’s the best choice for themselves.
Certainly many conservative folks would paint us on the left simply because there is openness. (You know the word “permissive” just freaks out a lot of Christians :))
The thing is – as I said in my reply to Brian – God honors a human being’s right to choose. In some ways it is kinda crazy that the church seems to not honor a person’s capacity to choose. The early church had a very simple confession, “Jesus is Lord”. What this meant is that people were claiming that their allegiance was to Jesus not to Caesar. There was a lot of room to figure out what that then looked like in how you lived your life. The church at Corinth, for example, had all kinds of crazy stuff going on. Some of the stuff Paul called them on the carpet for – particularly the things they were flaunting that even offended the Romans. But the reality was there was a fair bit of chaos as followers of Jesus tried to figure out, “How now shall we live?” Today, Christians are still wrestling with that question – because our context keeps on changing. Instead of fear and control and shame – I think God’s heart is that we walk with each other, encourage one another towards the good (which Jesus makes very clear is feeding the poor, visiting the sick and prisoner, and welcoming the stranger), and honor one another’s conscience.
I also found this part both wonderful and interesting:
For all of our talk about Jesus, about story, about relationship, about justice, when we feel the anxiety of “how far will this go?” or “we’re sliding down the slippery slope” we return to the rulebook of “do’s” and “don’t’s”.
I agree with your point, but I also find the very tendency to define “morality” as a “rule book of (arbitrary?) do’s and don’t’s.” To me, it suggest that at least some Christians have a very different understanding of what morality is, why it’s necessary, and how it is derived.
I’d love to hear how you define morality Jarred. I agree that morality must be something much more enlivened than a list of rules.
Morality is something I love to talk about, as you can see. (I hope you don’t mind the links.) While my understanding is still developing, I’d say that it mainly flows from and revolves around two point:
1. My understanding of wyrd and the idea that Creation is an ongoing process in which we are co-participants. Morality is necessary and helpful to understand how to go about that process and create a better world.
2. My understanding that the Divine lives in and animates everything. Morality is the process of recognizing, honoring, and relating to the Divine in the “other.”
I also find these two points highly interrelated to one another. For example, the “better world” in point 1 is generally a world in which we better recognize, honor, and relate to the Divine in the “other.”
Anyway, that’s a brief thirty second descriptions. I’m not sure it quite qualifies as a definition, though. 😉
Thanks for these thoughts Jarred. (I’ll have to go back to all your links when I have a bit more time and space) I find them to be beautiful and to resonate with me.
Hi Jarred –
You say: “Morality is the process of recognizing, honoring, and relating to the Divine in the ‘other’.”
I agree wholheartedly. This is one of my core beliefs. If we take seriously the idea that we are all created in the image of God, then by knowing and being known by one another, God is revealed. I believe that each of us has a unique contribution to make to the kingdom. We’re all at this dance together and God sent the invites. In this framework, loving neigbor and enemy makes total sense; by doing so we are mutally transformed. I believe we are sanctified through relationship.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
David
Wendy,
There’s a lot of meat on this bone. Thanks for taking the time to write this thoughtful piece.
I’d like to engage with this notion that the traditional sexual ethic relegates people who are gay to a subhuman status, and how that fits in with the third way.
Yes. Traditionalist theology diminishes the humanity of people who are gay. It pathologizes us and claims our relationships are both immoral and inferior. It is inherently harmful; it is emotionally and spiritually abusive to the fourteen year old gay kid in the front pew. This is the part of the moral conversation that most would-be bridge builders refuse to engage in.
You asked if we can look at celibate gay Chirstians and say that they view themselves as less than human. I was once that celibate gay Christian and, yes, I did not believe I was intended to live a fully human life. Traditional morality taught me to loath myself – particularly my sexuality. My beliefs required me to be emotionally distant which was a barrier to all relationship – not just intimate ones. The traditionalist theology demands gay people to live contrary to God’s creative intention for humanity. The very real suffering endured by celibate gay Christians is as unjust as it is unnecessary. I will not stop advocating for change in belief until the fourteen year old gay kid is safe.
I think there are two fundamental misunderstandings about the third way.
First, it’s not a convenient or easy way to set our disagreements aside for the sake of unity. Our disagreements exist. We need to be transparent with one another and discuss them openly. We need to listen and increase our understanding and compassion for one another. We need to be mutually transformed by one another. All of that is impossible if we break communion. The third way enables unity not by setting our disagreements aside, but by engaging with them (and each other) with grace. We must accept one another even as Christ accepted us.
Second, there seems to be the idea that the onus is completely on the traditionalists to compromise their deeply held beliefs. That’s not true and it’s a recipe for disaster. The onus is also on revisionists like me to accept and love those who believe to their core that my marriage (and by extension my husband and me) is inferior and immoral. It is every bit as much my Christian obligation to keep communion as it is my traditionalist siblings in Christ. Only by all believers subjugating their beliefs to inclusion will we be able to have the life-giving relationships that come from true Christian fellowship.
My very best to you
David
Hello David. Thank you for this thoughtful contribution. I am aware of the limitations of my experience being a mainly straight gal – and defer to the reality that you and other LGBTQ folks have experienced. The reality is, of course, that different people have different experiences. So someone like myself tries to listen to as many different stories and experiences as I can.
I do often pray for and hold those 14 year olds (and younger) in my heart. When I speak about “limiting scripts” and “life-giving stories” with youth leaders in traditional churches my focus is to try to open the space so that 14 year old will hear a message of hope and the reality that there are options in front of them. In this way, we seek to both honor where the church is at and give those LGBTQ students hope and the encouragement that they don’t have to leave their faith to be honest and authentic about their sexuality.
For me, at this point, I wouldn’t tend to talk about my work in terms of bridge-building – although we did speak that way a couple of years ago. Certainly our priority is to encourage a commitment to unity in diversity – and I so appreciate your thoughts on this matter. This is our priority because the reality is that diverse perspectives on these matters aren’t going to go away any time soon. There are some who are very clear about their positions. And then there are many, including many gay Christians, who find themselves still uncertain and living with a lot of tension. I completely agree with you that keeping communion isn’t about setting disagreements aside – they are too important for that. Absolutely we must engage in the kind of dialogue where we deeply listen to one another with a commitment to respect and humanize the other. The reality is that in a lot of churches that I work with this art of dialogue has not been practiced and there needs to be opportunities to learn and engage with an experienced facilitator who can help nurture a sense of safety for all.
Thanks again David for stopping by – really appreciated your thoughts.
Hi Wendy –
One more thought – and I think this is key.
You say:” In a congregation, yes, there will be some degree of binary in terms of the dominant belief concerning same-sex relationships.”
I disagree. There may be a prevailing belief about the moral permissability of same sex relationships, but that doesn’t mean that it’s one of only two options; nor does it meon that all people who believe that such realtionships are permissable hold an affirming position.
In the public conversation about faith and homosexuality, we’ve done ourselves a huge disservice by using binary language. It’s not just “side A”/”side B” or “affriming/non-affirming”. There is a spectrum of belief about the sinfulness of homosexuality that runs from complete rejection to complete acceptance. In his book A Time To Embrace, William Stacy Johnson identifies seven specific points along that spectrum. People don’t jump from one pole to the other, they journey across the spectrum and arrive, almost invariably, at acceptance. As a Christian who is gay, I had to take that journey. We need to give others the space to do likewise.
(OK – I promise I’ll stop commenting now)….
I wish you peace
David
Please don’t stop commenting 🙂
I agree – which is why I said “some degree” – perhaps not the best way to describe the reality that there are many nuances along the spectrum. And that is part of the message that we try to bring – to identify nuances rather than black and white.