Tags
Christian Spirituality, Defy the Cultural Trends, Identity, LGBTQ, Matthew 23, Mere Orthodoxy, Sexuality, Trans-Identity, Untidy Stories
It is possible that there are no more demanding and harsher words spoken by the Lord Jesus than those found in Matthew 23. Speaking to the woeful crowds of faith-failures in a Roman-occupied homeland, He appears to have had enough of the religious scholars, lawyers, and judges of His day (may we not be found to be like them):
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees… tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
I write this today because the article to which I want to direct your attention is recent and has something to say about modern Evangelical practices and positions toward the LGBTQ community. If you’ve been reading my blogs, I suspect you are either unhappily confused by my rather enigmatic writing style, or upset that I write anything that would be so politically incorrect as to point us all back to a Christ-centered worldview. I have wanted to challenge our thinking about identity in terms – different from our current culture.
Today I direct your attention to the Mere Orthodoxy article by Jake Meador, because he positions the discussion re: sexual ethics in a bigger story of what it means to follow Jesus, be like Him, and to act like Him:
If evangelicals are going to insist on orthodoxy with regards to sex ethics (and we must) then we must also insist on the practices of hospitality and friendship that have far too often been neglected in our churches. Those practices will inform more than just our relationships with celibate gay Christians in our churches, of course, but they will inform those relationships in a massive and noticeable way.
… The problem for LGBT individuals is not always what the demands of Scripture force them to give up (hard as those demands are), but rather what the failures of the church would force them to give up if they were to remain Christian. If the church is to maintain its commitment to orthodoxy then the church must also be willing to defy the cultural trends toward individualism, busyness, and mobility and be willing to slow down enough to offer the gifts of unhurried time, friendship, and hospitality to gay Christians in our community. We must be a place where the word celibacy is not a dressed up way of describing loneliness.
Encouragement to Be:
Loneliness is among the more noticeable modern trends of culture disease. Loneliness is what we experience when we let ourselves notice how separate we are from others, and from the One who made us for Himself.
Let me encourage you to read the whole article here, and to follow a link to Julie Rodgers, who recently resigned her position from Wheaton College. She also writes a recent article worth reading: An Update on the Gay Debate: evolving ideas, untidy stories, and hopes for the church.
Therefore, let me encourage us to defy the cultural trends; let me encourage us not to merely tie up heavy, cumbersome loads on other people’s shoulders, while being unwilling to lift a finger to move them.
More Enigma than Dogma
I believe that Christian Spirituality is the process of becoming more like Jesus, and therefore, becoming more as we are to be in all its uniqueness and worth. I believe this process is less about dogma, and less about doctrinal position finding & faulting – and more about the enigma of what it truly means to be human – that is – to be like Jesus.
My aim is to to know Him more clearly, love Him more dearly, and follow Him more nearly day by day. As in any deep and abiding friendship, this has more to do with relationship than with beliefs. In saying that, I do not diminish the need for beliefs; I diminish the way we sometimes hold beliefs (doctrinal positions in particular) as it relates the life-long restoration process of becoming human.
As usual: this is more enigma than dogma.
More Enigma Than Dogma 
Hi Rusty! Thanks for the invite – I certainly wasn’t a welcome guest at the other blog! 😉
I admire your stand on our LGBTQ friends. It’s the most charitable – and the most humanitarian – stand anyone can take. I come from a church where LGBTQ people have always been welcomed/embraced and in fact, the United Church of Canada was the first denomination to welcome gay/lesbian ministers and the first to perform same-sex marriages. (the UCC also has an atheist minister) So the fundamentalist mindset is – in my mind – completely toxic. Which I have mentioned on the other blog and, as you probably suspect, that comment did not see the light of day. I don’t know about you, but anyone who censors heavily on their blog is waving a red flag. It says, “I must have my own agenda upheld”.
I also read the links you provided; both are excellent reads. I think that information about LGBTQ people should come from the LGBTQ community, and no one else. After all, they are the experts in their own lives. It must be incredibly frustrating/hurtful to have heterosexual ‘experts’ putting forth their opinions.
Nice to ‘meet’ you!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Jane; I’m delighted you responded to my invitation. My starting point is to admit that we are all “sexually broken.” This ought to arouse compassion in us, not antagonism. I elaborate on this in: https://moreenigma.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/sexuality-r-us/.
I rue the political nature a lot of the discussion, and though I am not “fundamentalist” – I do consider the Bible to inform my ethic, and, in the words of Jesus, “to find Him in it” (John 5:39, 40). I am not very interested in proving myself “right”, but in improving the tone of any dialogue.
You say that any info on LGBTQ should only come from people in this community. I take a slightly different tack on this topic in: https://moreenigma.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/are-we-all-q-duringin-an-age-of-discovery/
I am quite open to hearing your perspective.
As for the other site where we met: though I don’t like the general tone, and some content, I do agree with one thing he wrote: “Calling people “LGBTQ”… leaves their identity as a person ignored and suffering.” Most of my approach to this topic has to do with the “identity” question. If you are long-suffering, here is a link to my articles under the tag: “Trans-identity”: https://moreenigma.wordpress.com/tag/trans-identity/
I know that not everyone in the LBGTQ community agree with each other; some even are heated about what they see is the “conflating” of gender and sexual identities. Nevertheless, I invite thoughtful replies.
Thanks again; I have said a lot here, and don’t expect you necessarily to respond.
Peace to you.
LikeLike
Hello again Rusty,
I see you are from ‘out West’ – I’m on the other coast of Canada.
I don’t agree with you that we are all ‘sexually broken’. .I believe that comes from the contention that many religious people (Baptists, in particular) feel about being broken – in general; having to do with original sin and all that. I reject that idea outright. I think we are HUMAN and, as such, make mistakes. The whole idea of going through life continually being reminded that you are a broken person (as many clergy do quite effectively, and then follow it up with, “But I can help you, as long as you keep coming for your weekly dose of spiritual re-charge and do remember to fill up the collection plate!”) I’m sure you will see that as being confrontational, but you did ask for my input. 🙂
Now, the one sentence that you plucked from his site – the one about leaving people ignored and suffering. . why must you come back to that aspect? I don’t have that attitude; never did have that attitude. As I’ve stated above, my religious experience has been in the UCC – the emphasis is on positive, not negative.
LikeLike
Hi Carmen, thanks for responding to my invitation to input. I was sincere in that, as I assume you have been in giving me your sincere input. Thanks.
The discussion about “brokenness” begs a larger conversation; I regret that you may feel that my understanding of brokenness comes off as condemnation or “being continually reminded”. I kinda hurl at the suggestion that I am no better than clergy who implore people to come for the weekly dose of re-charge at the price of a collection plate.
In the sentence I plucked (that is an accurate description of what I did), the piece I am picking up on is our “identity” is left incomplete, even reduced. I just think sexuality, and sexual attractions ought not be the sole way, or the most profound way that a person is defined; each person is richer than a label that reduces one to a cause, a group, or even a mask.
If this is true, I would hope the discussion about identity would help us re-look at what makes us human and humane – and would make us open to the process of healing our fractured image of God.
You don’t need me if all I represent to you is something “negative.” (as unfair as I think this summation is). I will not decry your own community that emphasizes positive. I accept at face value that you are in a good place, and you don’t need either my affirmation or contradiction of this.
Thanks for taking the effort and time to write me. Much appreciated.
LikeLike
Hello again Rusty,
I can agree that ” sexuality, and sexual attractions ought not be the sole way, or the most profound way that a person is defined; each person is richer than a label ” and I think that most people strive NOT to treat people based solely on their sexuality. The goal for a truly enlightened society should certainly be that people are treated as individuals no matter how sexuality is expressed. The problem that I see is that some religious people (the body of doctors, for instance, in the post that we have spoken about) use their ‘beliefs’ to stigmatize certain people . . . and they still see themselves as christians.
I also think that we ought not be generalizing about people in the LGBTQ community or passing any kind of judgement as THEY are the people who get to define their experience; and the more reminders that they are people first, the better. Is that what you are hoping to impart with your post?
LikeLike
You can see I was using a pseudonym; I’m not sure what happened because I wasn’t finished my comment. . I’m in a bit of a hurry so I may get back to your blog later.
LikeLike
Hello.
I find myself deeply hostile to you. Let us see if we can move forward.
In my Quaker meeting, I am accepted as a trans woman. I am celebrated for the gifts I bring- I am clerk, among other things. Christ liberates me to serve more fully- love more dearly, etc- through acceptance of my true self.
I am being sanctified and glorified.
You are completely wrong about celibacy for gay people. If you decide that you have the right to specify which action is the Unacceptable Sin for someone starting on their journey with Christ- or even well on in that process of sanctification- you exclude people from the body of Christ. As you have referred to BIID, it is like the hand saying because I am not an eye… then gouging the eye out. Let us be in your church as we are- in queer relationships, in queer modes of expression- being sanctified into greater service for God. As we come to sanctification- living in peace with our neighbours, and building peace in the world- becoming more and more truthful- creating justice and equality- you may indeed find that we decide to split our relationships, as a way of following more nearly. Or not. Take the log from your own eye before telling me I should present male, rather than being a teacher in your church as I am.
This is the source of the hostility: I can accept blah about LGBT being sinful from idiots who do not know Christ, there are so many of them, Ted Cruz was with someone preaching that gays should be stoned to death, and shook his hand. There are many more even further from Christ than he. He is like a broken sick child who does not know his brokenness, playing with his excrement. But then there’s you, with your coy little hints about “a clue to who I am” and weird, obsessive long posts tagged “trans identity”. If you are trans, and in deep denial of your trans reality because you are oppressed by a false understanding of the Gospel, TURN TO CHRIST AND BE HEALED AND FREE! And if you are not trans, why on Earth are you obsessing on trans so much?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Clare, I am genuinely happy that you have found community in which you are accepted, celebrated, liberated, being sanctified and glorified! Full stop. Period. No provisos.
I understand your hostility to me, and I am not wise enough to have any better answers to your accusations of me other than to say that I am exploring what it means to be a person; what it means to be a human. That you read something condemning in my posts is regrettable, but I admit, I am making statements about what I am calling our massive identity confusion.
In the end, who am I anyways? You needn’t worry yourself about hostility from me; I am not interested in that; it might have something to do with the effort of “taking that log out of my eye.” Thanks for taking the time to give me your perspective – I genuinely value it.
Sincerely.
LikeLike
Rusty, here’s an excellent discussion to help you ‘decipher the enigma of our worth’ –
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2016/04/03/so-long-self/
He states very clearly why I do not subscribe to the idea that humans are flawed creatures.
LikeLike
Thanks Carmen, I have read Neil’s blog before and visit it from time to time. I appreciate his insights; it may surprise you that I agree with some of what he says, and I believe that I too, speak into a larger culture that includes a “christian” (sic) culture of ideas that need buffering and correcting (as it always has). He admits that if his posts “strike anyone as antagonistic, then the reader should consider the possibility that circumstances around him inspired that.” I respect that.
My spiritual journey has not led me to his conclusions, and as you picked up on my intent, it is my hope to decipher the enigma our our worth in relationship with the One who made us for Himself. This is not code for “be converted,” or “agree with me,” or “you ought to feel more broken than you do.” It is far more enigmatic than that.
In the spirit of sharing perspectives, you might be interested in a book that has come out on “The Faith of Christopher Hitchens” (speaking of a well informed atheist who would most certainly have been able to slice and dice anything I’ve reasoned): https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/book-reviews-the-faith-of-christopher-hitchens.
Again, thanks for engaging me in dialogue.
LikeLike
Hello again Rusty,
I read through the gospel coalition’s book review. I’m sure it’s got many christians all agog as they must feel that gleeful ‘I knew it!’ when they read this – they’ll take it as an indication that, deep down, (and I think many actually do feel this way) every atheist is a secret believer. Not to mention the blatant projection going on here, I remember seeing videos of Christopher Hitchens before he died and I also read the follow-up from his wife and family members. Make no mistake, Christopher Hitchens went to his grave a committed atheist. Yes, people, there really have been many atheists in foxholes.
From his list of five points: The one about his contention that CH was exposed to a ‘negative’ form of Christianity, and that’s what scarred him for life. (or that seemed to be what he was suggesting). I have heard this said over and over by believers, usually expressed as, “Oh but if you just experienced the love of christ the way OUR church expresses it!” It makes me wonder, just how could ANYONE pinpoint which one was the correct one when there are currently 40,000 plus ‘flavours’ of christianity?? I shake my head when I hear someone say this – yet again.
The other point of his (which I have heard ad nauseam) was this business of WHY people deconvert. His line, “nobody arrives at atheism by merely weighing the intellectual merits” is another head shaker. I don’t know how many atheist bloggers you’ve read – and if you’ve read Neil Carter you should be familiar with this idea – but EVERY atheist person I’ve ever spoken to, or read, states this as being THE reason for leaving religion. In fact, in this age of information at our fingertips, ignorance is a choice. That is the reason so many young people are not in the pews – they don’t believe in the supernatural because they read. They have realized that the bible is another myth, with most of the stories having come from an earlier time. I can give you many links to many blogs, who all state this as being the reason they left the faith – their intellect allowed them to process information, and they’ve realized that man made god(s); not the other way around.
So you will understand when I tell you that the fellow who wrote this story – in my opinion – is another person ‘making bank off Je$u$’. Rather ironically, through the story of one of the most famous atheists.
LikeLike
Hi Carmen, it doesn’t appear we’re having a conversation anymore. I can’t say I agree with anything you think I’ve said or intended. It doesn’t appear you read the review of the book, because “faith” as it refers to Hitchens, is a play on words. Neither the book nor I have suggested anything else, nor do I decry Hitchen’s fine mind and rapier logic. Further, though I read widely, and regularly face ideas that contradict and challenge my own, I wouldn’t claim I am a scholar (you probably already know this). I’m not wise enough to know how to respond to your anger/cynicism, and it will be fruitless for us to merely exchange links if we don’t listen to each other.
LikeLike
I see, Rusty. You cannot talk to Clare and you cannot talk to me. I would suggest that you only speak with others who feel exactly the same way you do, then. As is so often the case when conversing with the religious, it appears that what you really want is an echo chamber – not unlike David McDonnough. That’s unfortunate.
I wish you well.
LikeLike
To be fair, it is Clare who has stopped talking to me, and it is Carmen who is talking past me. This no way to have a dialogue on personhood. The “echo chamber” metaphor is a good one… but to whom does this actually apply?
Meanwhile, here’s one of Patheos’ posts that finds common ground: Neil comments and links to a TED Talk “that will change the way you look at people around you”: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/billykangas/2014/09/this-ted-talk-by-a-catholic-priest-will-change-the-way-you-look-at-people-around-you.html
LikeLike
I enjoyed reading the article and agree on some points, yet there was one thing that kept standing out to me of which I cannot agree. I certainly do not say this for the sake of causing an argument and I may have misinterpreted what you were saying. I agree we are to be like Jesus and love and accept people. We need to look past the labels we put on one another and see each other as human beings. But it sounds to me when you mention the LGBT community should be accepted in the church it comes with a condition…..that they are celebate. To me that is saying you still have to change something to be accepted, you cannot be who you are or the way you were created. I think that easily alienates a lot of the LGBT community because we refuse to accept them just as they are without meeting conditions being put on them. I know personally only a few gay christian people but I do know they are sincere in their love for God and sincere in their love for their partner. For me, I feel we should not focus on labels or conditions for people to be accepted and loved, whether in the church system or outside the walls of religion. Jesus loved and cared for all he met and did not condemn others. As followers of Christ I feel we should accept and respect others just as they are and let God guide them in they way they are to go….Thanks for sending me the link to this article and for allowing me to post my opinion on the subject.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. How I would love to discuss this over a beer or a coffee, and listen more deeply than this writing back and forth. As you might see above, I have not been successful in a more understanding discussion, and I take that on the chin. I completely agree that we ought not focus on labels (that is kind of my point in some of the other articles), since I challenge the notion that our attractions and impulses define us. Let me try this summary:
1. We all are created in God’s Image
2. We are sexual creatures
3. We are understood and accepted as we are
4. We are sexually broken (among other things) – This is where most people depart from my understanding.
5. We need compassion and healing.
I would not say that I demand celibacy (I am quoting Jake Meadow) as a precondition of acceptance. As you aptly pointed out, Jesus loved and cared for all, and did not condemn. His encounter with the woman caught adultery in John 8 is a beautiful example of this. But you will remember at the end of the encounter, when He affirms he will not condemn her, he says “go and sin no more.”
As I make pains to clarify in other posts, I am the worst Christian I personally know; I am not interested in comparing who’s worse, nor am I demanding anyone conform to my understanding in order to be accepted. My “worst Christian” status does not mean I go around beating myself up. I know I am accepted and profoundly understood. But I do challenge the notion that we will stay as we are as we grow in our relationship with Jesus – and I challenge the notion that we have no other alternative but to define ourselves according to our impulses/attractions. If that were true, then I am merely a bundle of un-redeemed impulses.
As I noted above at #4, most people who self identify as LGBTQ stop right there, concluding (I think) that I am condemning their sexual brokenness – since no one will agree that they are “sexually broken.” I am left alone to admit my own sexual brokenness. For more on how others in the LGBTQ community have been processing this, you may go to: https://moreenigma.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/living-waters-and-the-question-of-identity/
I appreciate your tone and your own desire to not merely start an argument. This has been my feeble way to gain understanding, despite how polemic and vitriolic social media has become. Perhaps going “off line” and emailing me might be good… but I prefer the long coffee.
Grace to you and thanks again for your response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for such a gracious response. I know we are not all going to agree on everything and we all want to be pleasing to God. It is good to be able to discuss and express our views in a friendly and accepting way. I agree we are to accept others and love them with the love of the Spirit within us.
LikeLiked by 1 person