Someone recently asked me about the outcomes of the various options in front of same-gender attracted people who are seeking to integrate their experience of faith with their sexual identity.
Essentially, I see these potential options in front of people. (If you can think of additional options – by all means I’d be intrigued to hear your thoughts)
• Live as though you didn’t experience same-gender attraction (ie. denial).
• Explore and potentially experience fluidity in your sexual attractions.
• Commit to live a single and celibate life in full recognition of the reality of the persistence of your same-gender attraction.
• Live in intentional community as a single person with honesty and authenticity about your sexual identity.
• Be a partner in a mixed-orientation marriage where there is genuine love and attraction, full disclosure, honest ongoing dialogue, commitment to serving and being faithful to one another and to your shared values and goals.
• Be a companion in a committed friendship (also known as covenantal friendships) that has boundaries and commitments to be non-sexual.
• Be open to building a relationship with a same-sex partner but maintain sexual chastity during your time of singleness.
• Be a partner in a covenanted same-sex relationship and/or marriage.
The diverse spectrum of readers of this blog may have very different beliefs and feelings about the appropriateness of any one of these options – I’m simply describing what I have encountered. What I can say, is that I have encountered people in all of these categories – and I have encountered followers of Jesus in all of these categories.
So, in this conversation, I was asked which of these options did I consistently see the most happy and healthy people. And my answer: I don’t know. For the most part (with the exception perhaps of the first one), I have seen people happy and healthy living out a variety of these outcomes.
I can’t say that happiness and healthiness are automatic guarantees that someone is living in the centre of God’s will for them. But on the other hand, I don’t think that God desires one of his children to be unhappy or unhealthy. The role of suffering in the life of a follower of Jesus is an important conversation to have when exploring these realities.
But if you are asking about what makes someone happy and healthy in living out one of the above options, I think it comes down to this (based on my observations and friendships):
1. If the person is secure in the unconditional love of God for them – they are much more likely to be in a happier and healthier place.
2. If the person is honest and accepting of him/herself and has a safe place to be able to share that – they are much more likely to be in a happier and healthier place. (Note: This doesn’t mean “I accept myself so I never have to grow or change anything” …. But it does mean that the person isn’t stuck in a paralyzing place of self-loathing.)
If a same-gender attracted person chooses one of these options – but lives in fear and dread of God’s punishment – they will experience a restlessness that keeps them from fully experiencing the peace of God. And if a same-gender attracted person is unable to be honest and share of themselves truly in the option they choose – they will likely begin to feel dead and empty inside with a subsequent sense of disconnection from God and others.
I don’t think you need to have sexual intercourse to be fully human and alive. Just look at the life of Jesus. But I do think we need to know in our deepest gut that we are loved by God unconditionally. And I do think we need a place where we can fully accept the realities about ourselves and be known and accepted by others.
In the often challenging journey of discovering how one might integrate their experience of same-gender attraction with their faith, values and convictions, there are different options to explore. The journey needs to be marked with prayer, Scriptural engagement, discernment – both individually and with the Body of Christ to whom you are connected, and a willingness to follow and obey God as he leads you. It often isn’t a linear trajectory – there are often twists and turns along the way. But if you keep your eyes fixed on Christ, if you ground yourself in the true knowledge of God’s love for you, if you situate yourself in friendship and relationship with those with whom you can be honest and authentic – then you will be well positioned to move forward towards a healthy outcome in which you may well experience deep and lasting happiness.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Sexual Fluidity & Fidelity
Maybe I’m not the only one who has a tough time really getting my head around what the idea of sexual fluidity means in people’s day-to-day lives. On one hand, I’ve seen over-inflated estimates of orientation change give way to the awareness that such complete shifts are rare. But on the other hand, in the world of queer theory the idea of fluidity seems readily accepted and though while more common for women not precluded from the experience of men. It seems to be a general consensus in the queer community that to try to experience shifts in your experience of sexual attraction through therapy is harmful – but if it happens all on its own – then so be it. I suppose one of the challenges is that we really don’t have any sense of how common experiences of fluidity are – nor to whom they will occur – or particularly why they occur.
But as a person of faith, who engages with people experiencing same-gender attraction who share faith convictions, this whole area of fluidity raises some questions. For someone who feels deeply convicted that same-gender sexual intimacy is not God’s best for them, is there a healthy way to explore the potential of their own fluidity? Not out of self-loathing or driven by fear, but from a place of mature self-acceptance?
I’ve heard enough painful stories of people who unsuccessfully tried to exploit a marginal sense of bisexuality to conform to Christian standards, to not be overly naïve. And while I know of many stories of couples who divorced upon the disclosure of same-sex orientation, I also know of couples in mixed orientation marriages with devout faith commitments who are making it work with honesty and integrity. And not only is it working, but they experience joy and fulfillment in their life together. Is that sexual fluidity at work? Or is it the fruit of commitment?
Because this whole area of sexual fluidity raises the question of the place of fidelity. For a person of faith, commitment within covenant is a reflection of God’s character. Without question such fidelity is deeply broken across the board - significantly seen among heterosexuals in our current divorce rates. But one does wonder how this interfaces with the concept of fluidity.
I came across this comment on a blog post about sexual fluidity:
“I notice that all the concern here is for the people who seem to be coming to terms with their sexual fluidity. What about the partners who committed themselves to someone they thought was with them for life, only to be told they now read a book and say that they are “sexually fluid”.
I am a lesbian who has been in a nearly ten year monogamous relationship with a woman who had been with men in the past. After two children and the usual picket fence stuff, and having the normal tough times with young kids and my partner with PND, when the going gets tough she says “I want to have sex with men again”. Having also said though that the sex with me was the best in her life and she loved me more than she’d ever loved anyone, now I have to buy that instead of knuckling down and working through our relationship stuff it’s just that she’s “sexually fluid”.
When she found out about the book “Sexual fluidity” she felt that finally she wasn’t a freak and there were other people just like her. I felt compassionately towards her but at the same time thinking, what about me and our kids? It just seems too convenient. It seems to be another opportunity to not own one’s inability to commit. When one is in a committed relationship with kids, my belief is you try everything to make the relationship work before you walk away, not just one day out of the blue say “I’m done, and by the way I feel like having sex with men again”.”
I think of intimacy and fidelity as two intrinsically linked but sometimes paradoxical realities. Everyone needs to have authentic experiences of intimacy. That is, wholistic intimacy – not only that which is reduced to genital sexual intimacy. And I would suggest that everyone also needs fidelity. Where fidelity is lacking (fidelity to values, fidelity in relationship, fidelity in family etc.) a person can become fragmented and empty. Sometimes in relationships these two can seem to be in tension. To remain faithful in a relationship can seem to mean a deficient experience of intimacy. Or conversely, experiencing intimacy may seem to demand the breaking of fidelity. But if you give up one for the other, brokenness inevitably results. And while one can certainly heal and move on from such experiences, most often scars remain.
At the risk of being pegged a hopeless conservative, I deeply believe that we are suffering from a lack of fidelity. But I also believe that we are often suffering from experiences of cheap and shallow intimacy. And I do have to wonder, if the concept of sexual fluidity might be a symptom of both.
What do you think? Have you experienced sexual fluidity? What impact did fidelity have on your experience?
But as a person of faith, who engages with people experiencing same-gender attraction who share faith convictions, this whole area of fluidity raises some questions. For someone who feels deeply convicted that same-gender sexual intimacy is not God’s best for them, is there a healthy way to explore the potential of their own fluidity? Not out of self-loathing or driven by fear, but from a place of mature self-acceptance?
I’ve heard enough painful stories of people who unsuccessfully tried to exploit a marginal sense of bisexuality to conform to Christian standards, to not be overly naïve. And while I know of many stories of couples who divorced upon the disclosure of same-sex orientation, I also know of couples in mixed orientation marriages with devout faith commitments who are making it work with honesty and integrity. And not only is it working, but they experience joy and fulfillment in their life together. Is that sexual fluidity at work? Or is it the fruit of commitment?
Because this whole area of sexual fluidity raises the question of the place of fidelity. For a person of faith, commitment within covenant is a reflection of God’s character. Without question such fidelity is deeply broken across the board - significantly seen among heterosexuals in our current divorce rates. But one does wonder how this interfaces with the concept of fluidity.
I came across this comment on a blog post about sexual fluidity:
“I notice that all the concern here is for the people who seem to be coming to terms with their sexual fluidity. What about the partners who committed themselves to someone they thought was with them for life, only to be told they now read a book and say that they are “sexually fluid”.
I am a lesbian who has been in a nearly ten year monogamous relationship with a woman who had been with men in the past. After two children and the usual picket fence stuff, and having the normal tough times with young kids and my partner with PND, when the going gets tough she says “I want to have sex with men again”. Having also said though that the sex with me was the best in her life and she loved me more than she’d ever loved anyone, now I have to buy that instead of knuckling down and working through our relationship stuff it’s just that she’s “sexually fluid”.
When she found out about the book “Sexual fluidity” she felt that finally she wasn’t a freak and there were other people just like her. I felt compassionately towards her but at the same time thinking, what about me and our kids? It just seems too convenient. It seems to be another opportunity to not own one’s inability to commit. When one is in a committed relationship with kids, my belief is you try everything to make the relationship work before you walk away, not just one day out of the blue say “I’m done, and by the way I feel like having sex with men again”.”
I think of intimacy and fidelity as two intrinsically linked but sometimes paradoxical realities. Everyone needs to have authentic experiences of intimacy. That is, wholistic intimacy – not only that which is reduced to genital sexual intimacy. And I would suggest that everyone also needs fidelity. Where fidelity is lacking (fidelity to values, fidelity in relationship, fidelity in family etc.) a person can become fragmented and empty. Sometimes in relationships these two can seem to be in tension. To remain faithful in a relationship can seem to mean a deficient experience of intimacy. Or conversely, experiencing intimacy may seem to demand the breaking of fidelity. But if you give up one for the other, brokenness inevitably results. And while one can certainly heal and move on from such experiences, most often scars remain.
At the risk of being pegged a hopeless conservative, I deeply believe that we are suffering from a lack of fidelity. But I also believe that we are often suffering from experiences of cheap and shallow intimacy. And I do have to wonder, if the concept of sexual fluidity might be a symptom of both.
What do you think? Have you experienced sexual fluidity? What impact did fidelity have on your experience?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Ubuntu & Bridge-Building
On my way back from the GCN conference in Nashville last month, I read a little book containing the words and inspiration of Desmond Tutu. In the introduction that he penned, Tutu speaks of a concept called ubuntu. He describes this term as a central aspect of African philosophy – the essence of what it is to be human.
He says,
“The definition of this concept has two parts. The first part is that the person is friendly, hospitable, generous, gentle, caring and compassionate. In other words, someone who will use his or her strengths on behalf of others – the weak and the poor and the ill – and not take advantage of anyone. This person treats others as he or she would be treated. And because of this they express the second part of the concept, which concerns openness, large-heartedness. They share their worth. In doing so my humanity is recognized and become inextricably bound to theirs.”
Then he goes on to say,
“But anger, resentment, a lust for revenge, greed, even the aggressive competitiveness that rules so much of our contemporary world, corrodes and jeopardizes our harmony. Ubuntu points out that those who seek to destroy and dehumanize are also victims – victims, usually of a pervading ethos, be it a political ideology, an economic system, or a distorted religious conviction. Consequently, they are as much dehumanized as those on whom they trample.”
He concludes by saying that the expression of ubuntu shows that the “only way we can ever be human is together. The only way we can be free is together.”
Reading this description of ubuntu was so poignant for me as I returned from my experience at the Gay Christian conference. Some of you may recall that this was not my first experience at a GCN conference. My first time I went rather incognito – simply wanting to be present, to listen and observe and open my heart to what God would reveal to me in the experience. I had a lot of internal tension during that experience that I did not really know how to resolve. What I sensed I needed to do was to simply stay present to those tensions and allow God to continue to lead me.
In the time since that conference and this one, God has continued to open doors for us to focus on building bridges in the complex and diverse milieu that surrounds the intersection of faith and sexuality. God has given us a grace to be in the midst of diverse beliefs and practice and look with his eyes to see where his Spirit is at work.
So this year, I went to the GCN conference to facilitate a workshop. I very much viewed it as a time to simply facilitate – because I fully expected to learn much more than I had to offer. You see, GCN in many ways embodies the reality of bridge-building – all the good, the bad and the ugly the comes along with the messy reality of trying to find unity in diversity. What I felt at my first conference – and again at this one – was the pang of wishing the church-at-large could somehow experience this embodiment of generous and gracious space. Not that it’s perfect. But it is a space where people of very different perspectives, on very personal issues, have found a way to make Christ central, worship the focus, and to extend love, grace and friendship to one another. It truly is a place of hospitality.
In our workshop together, we explored some of the barriers we encounter when trying to build bridges:
- fear
- pride
- lack of readiness
- different paradigms
- different hermeneutics (ways of interpreting scripture)
- ethnic and cultural differences
We looked at tools that help us to build bridges:
- learning to really listen
- humility
- really understanding grace
- building relationship over a long time
- being willing to be transparent and vulnerable
- demonstrating a willingness to understand other perspectives
- taking on a learning posture rather than being agenda-driven
And we talked about some of the benefits – the fruit – of building bridges:
- it helps us to grow
- it’s not “us” vs. “them”
- it brings maturity
- we get to bless one another
- we remember the Kingdom of God is diverse
- creates space for other who come after us
- can help reach those who don’t know Christ
- we practice being Christ-centered
- helps us live out unity in diversity
- we serve others in relationship
What would you add to these lists? Make your suggestions in the comments.
When I think about building bridges in the arena of faith and sexuality, it can be easy to think about how hard it is, how easily it is misunderstood, how much criticism I receive because of it. But these words continue to motivate me to enter diverse contexts with humility and grace to find common ground, shared core values and collaborative goals:
“Even though I am free of the demands and expectations of everyone, I have voluntarily become a servant to any and all in order to reach a wide range of people: religious, nonreligious, meticulous moralists, loose-living immoralists, the defeated, the demoralized—whoever. I didn't take on their way of life. I kept my bearings in Christ—but I entered their world and tried to experience things from their point of view. I've become just about every sort of servant there is in my attempts to lead those I meet into a God-saved life. I did all this because of the Message. I didn't just want to talk about it; I wanted to be in on it!”
(I Cor. 9: 21-23 the Message)
At the end of the day, bridge building offers me the profound joy of being a person of ubuntu. I have a lot to learn and have a long ways to grow into my ubuntu-hood …. But I am so grateful for those who invite me into their space, who share their table and facebook chats with me, who extend their humanity to me across whatever differences we have. I count it a great gift.
He says,
“The definition of this concept has two parts. The first part is that the person is friendly, hospitable, generous, gentle, caring and compassionate. In other words, someone who will use his or her strengths on behalf of others – the weak and the poor and the ill – and not take advantage of anyone. This person treats others as he or she would be treated. And because of this they express the second part of the concept, which concerns openness, large-heartedness. They share their worth. In doing so my humanity is recognized and become inextricably bound to theirs.”
Then he goes on to say,
“But anger, resentment, a lust for revenge, greed, even the aggressive competitiveness that rules so much of our contemporary world, corrodes and jeopardizes our harmony. Ubuntu points out that those who seek to destroy and dehumanize are also victims – victims, usually of a pervading ethos, be it a political ideology, an economic system, or a distorted religious conviction. Consequently, they are as much dehumanized as those on whom they trample.”
He concludes by saying that the expression of ubuntu shows that the “only way we can ever be human is together. The only way we can be free is together.”
Reading this description of ubuntu was so poignant for me as I returned from my experience at the Gay Christian conference. Some of you may recall that this was not my first experience at a GCN conference. My first time I went rather incognito – simply wanting to be present, to listen and observe and open my heart to what God would reveal to me in the experience. I had a lot of internal tension during that experience that I did not really know how to resolve. What I sensed I needed to do was to simply stay present to those tensions and allow God to continue to lead me.
In the time since that conference and this one, God has continued to open doors for us to focus on building bridges in the complex and diverse milieu that surrounds the intersection of faith and sexuality. God has given us a grace to be in the midst of diverse beliefs and practice and look with his eyes to see where his Spirit is at work.
So this year, I went to the GCN conference to facilitate a workshop. I very much viewed it as a time to simply facilitate – because I fully expected to learn much more than I had to offer. You see, GCN in many ways embodies the reality of bridge-building – all the good, the bad and the ugly the comes along with the messy reality of trying to find unity in diversity. What I felt at my first conference – and again at this one – was the pang of wishing the church-at-large could somehow experience this embodiment of generous and gracious space. Not that it’s perfect. But it is a space where people of very different perspectives, on very personal issues, have found a way to make Christ central, worship the focus, and to extend love, grace and friendship to one another. It truly is a place of hospitality.
In our workshop together, we explored some of the barriers we encounter when trying to build bridges:
- fear
- pride
- lack of readiness
- different paradigms
- different hermeneutics (ways of interpreting scripture)
- ethnic and cultural differences
We looked at tools that help us to build bridges:
- learning to really listen
- humility
- really understanding grace
- building relationship over a long time
- being willing to be transparent and vulnerable
- demonstrating a willingness to understand other perspectives
- taking on a learning posture rather than being agenda-driven
And we talked about some of the benefits – the fruit – of building bridges:
- it helps us to grow
- it’s not “us” vs. “them”
- it brings maturity
- we get to bless one another
- we remember the Kingdom of God is diverse
- creates space for other who come after us
- can help reach those who don’t know Christ
- we practice being Christ-centered
- helps us live out unity in diversity
- we serve others in relationship
What would you add to these lists? Make your suggestions in the comments.
When I think about building bridges in the arena of faith and sexuality, it can be easy to think about how hard it is, how easily it is misunderstood, how much criticism I receive because of it. But these words continue to motivate me to enter diverse contexts with humility and grace to find common ground, shared core values and collaborative goals:
“Even though I am free of the demands and expectations of everyone, I have voluntarily become a servant to any and all in order to reach a wide range of people: religious, nonreligious, meticulous moralists, loose-living immoralists, the defeated, the demoralized—whoever. I didn't take on their way of life. I kept my bearings in Christ—but I entered their world and tried to experience things from their point of view. I've become just about every sort of servant there is in my attempts to lead those I meet into a God-saved life. I did all this because of the Message. I didn't just want to talk about it; I wanted to be in on it!”
(I Cor. 9: 21-23 the Message)
At the end of the day, bridge building offers me the profound joy of being a person of ubuntu. I have a lot to learn and have a long ways to grow into my ubuntu-hood …. But I am so grateful for those who invite me into their space, who share their table and facebook chats with me, who extend their humanity to me across whatever differences we have. I count it a great gift.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Urbana 09
So I’ve made it home from Urbana 09 while back in St. Louis, 16,000 conference participants are still hitting the main sessions, workshops and completely slamming a tiny little Starbucks across the street from the conference centre. Put on by Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, Urbana happens once every 3 years. From what I understand, this year had the most developed focus on hosting conversations around sexual identity.
I began my workshop by suggesting these priorities:
• Fostering a spacious place for those outside the heterosexual mainstream to explore faith
• Encouraging disciples in local, contextualized communities
• Nurture shalom where these issues touch real people’s lives
• Dismantling the negative perceptions of those outside the church
I wanted to lay out the context by describing the attitudes, tensions, and challenges I regularly encounter across the diverse spectrum of folks I engage. I also wanted to identify the realities that should inform our thinking: the impact of post-modernity, post-Christendom, rapid social change, generational disconnection, diversity in the church, and turbulence in the church.
In light of these considerations, core values for engagement:
• To be radical in hospitality
• To be grace-based—not judgment-based
• To not use shame or fear as motivators
• To be non-coercive
• To embody a sense of mutuality & equity (non-patronizing)
• To be respectful of differences
• To be realistic about expectations
• To be alert to issues of justice
• To focus on authentic hope in Christ
• To empower the individual to own their own journey
• To continue growing in discernment
There were four speakers addressing various aspects of engaging our gay neighbours. Andrew Marin, Christopher Yuan and Bill Henson joined me in offering five workshops – by far the most Urbana has ever had. The four of us also joined forces in offering our thoughts in a 90 minute panel discussion. Going in, I’d read Andy’s book, followed his blog and connected a bit over email with him, I had a bit of a sense of who Christopher was, but had never heard of Bill. And I wondered how well our different talks would mesh. I was glad they put us on a panel together – and I was grateful for how that discussion emerged. While each speaker comes from their own unique context and journey, there was a clear and consistent focus on: the priority of sharing the love of Christ with people where they’re at; and promoting a strong relational paradigm for mission and ministry.
I expected that the audience would be diverse – and I was right. It seemed that generally speaking audiences had a good capacity to acknowledge and respect the reality of diversity. I encountered many students for whom these are very personal realities - and I cherished the chance to affirm to them God's love and his desire to use them in their sense of calling.
All in all, I leave Urbana hopeful – hopeful that gay brothers and sisters will know the love of God as they serve him in missions and beyond and that this generation of leaders will engage their gay neighbours with priorities and values that embody the heart of Christ.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Uganda & Beyond: Speaking the Truth in Love
On my way to St. Louis to speak at the Urbana Student Missions conference, I had the opportunity to re-read Jean Vanier’s book, “Finding Peace”. If you haven’t read this little gem – go get it and read it! In its pages I was again inspired, revitalized and focused to continue our bridge-building work as an expression of the peace-making heart of God.
Vanier says, “The world is divided into many thousands of more or less hermetically closed groups. If each group is sure that it is better than others, how can peace ever come? It is difficult to dialogue with others if we cling arrogantly to the idea that we are right or that our power and technology are a sign of our humanity and goodness. Walls and barriers exist between people because of language, but also because of fear – each group fearful of those who are different, fearful of losing its identity. People resist opening up to others. Aren’t we all in one way or another enclosed in a secure group, in our culture, our religion, our family, our network of friends? Family and different types of groups are needed for human growth, but when they become sealed they engender rivalry, conflict, elitism.” (p. 16 emphasis mine)
Last night I heard Oscar Muriu from Kenya speak at Urbana. He spoke about the incarnation and the movements that Christ embodied in this choice to enter our world vulnerably as a newborn child. The movements from pride to humility, from power to powerlessness, from position to poverty (and he had one more which I’m not recalling) are the incarnational postures to which we are called as those who seek to nurture shalom. Here was a passionate African leader challenging 16,000 students to lead the way through vibrant expressions of incarnational mission, to extend grace to the generation before them who made lots of mistakes but who did the best they knew how in obedience and faithfulness to Christ, and to lead by forging a new and radical path that refuses the way of empire, colonialism, power and money. How grateful I was, how hopeful I was to think about partnership and engagement with our African brothers and sisters who embrace and embody such incarnational paradigms.
I continue to have many questions about how to best engage the situation in Uganda. I am keenly aware of our tragic legacy of colonialism and the danger of imposing western culture into their unique context. One of my deepest personal core values is to not be patronizing in my engagement with others – but to extend honour and respect by experiencing mutuality with the expectation that there will always be opportunity to learn even as there is opportunity to offer personal experience. And I am concerned that I not speak into a global situation (of which I would be the first to say I have no first-hand experience) with an unconscious yet arrogant presumption. At the same time, have we not learned some things in the 40 plus years since Stonewall? Are there not some things that can and ought to be offered and shared in both a spirit of humility and the conviction of valuing the image of God and the belovedness of each glbt person?
As I have continued to ponder and pray, I continue to return to this idea that seems to be generating powerful fear behind the Ugandan legislation and broader misconceptions about glbt people. It is this idea that gay people are recruiting “our children”. It seems to me that this is one of the core drivers behind the perpetuation and justification of devaluing the lives of same-sex oriented individuals in not only Uganda, but many parts of the world.
As a mom, I well know, that if you want to see me turn from a meek & mild, gentle & nice woman to a ferocious mama bear in 3 seconds flat – then just threaten my children. The gloves are off, I don’t care who you are – I’ll take you out. If I am honest, I may not take the necessary time to investigate if the threat is real or fabricated – because in that moment all I care about is protecting my babies. And if I don’t have access to reliable information about the perceived threat, then I will likely be incapable of making clear decisions consistent with the universal core value of treating others as I would want to be treated. All of that goes out the window in light of my gut level passion to protect my children.
And it is this kind of fear-inducing, manipulation (often promoted in the name of Christ) to which I feel I must speak. I must speak because this whole notion of widespread recruiting of children by average gay people is not true. And because stirring up fear that turns one human being against another is completely inconsistent with the way of Jesus – who chose incarnation: humility, powerlessness & poverty.
It is a sad reality of human sexuality that older adults seduce the young. This is indisputable. But this is not a gay issue – this is a human issue.
And it is a tragic reality that sexual abuse can cause tremendous woundedness and confusion in victims. But it is not accurate to insinuate that all gay people should be viewed as offenders until proven innocent – anymore than it would be to insinuate that all straight people should be viewed as offenders until proven innocent.
And it is not accurate to insinuate that homosexuality can somehow be “caught”, that it will “spread”, or that extending dignity and respect to our gay neighbours will increase the prevalence of homosexuality among our youth. The question of causation is complex and currently inconclusive. So while there seems to be a unique combination of both nature and nurture factors impacting different people to different degrees, what we do know is that a homosexual orientation is not something chosen or simply adopted. (And really, given the climate in Uganda towards gay people – who in their right mind would choose that?)
The reality of an increase in same-sex sexual experimentation, particularly in our western context, is, in my opinion, an alarming one. In my understanding, it is alarming because it fosters an unhealthy promiscuity for which young people seem to be often oblivious to long-term consequences including the potential of confusion in one's experience of sexual identity. But such experimentation, I would suggest, is far more the result of our own consumeristic, lust-oriented, celebrity-fixated, individualistic culture than it is the fruit of extending fair and just treatment and hospitality to our gay neighbours.
So, as someone in the west who desires to humbly acknowledge that I do not fully understand all the complex cultural realities influencing attitudes about homosexuality in a context like Uganda, I do wish, as a follower of Jesus Christ who in serving gay people has experienced much heart change, to offer such distinctions on these matters as they impact our children.
It may be that you continue, on the basis of Scripture, to hold a theological perspective that homosexual behaviour is inconsistent with God’s guidelines for human sexuality. If you hold such convictions may it be not from fear, misinformation, or prejudice – but from prayerful, humble wrestling with Scripture. But let us, who name the name of Jesus, recognize that such conviction about God-honouring behaviour cannot negate the truth of God’s love for our gay neighbours and our responsibility as his followers to challenge fear-inducing misinformation that would oppress or marginalize.
Vanier: “This passage, this crossing over the barricades that separate cultures and religions, is not a rejection of one’s own faith, tradition, and culture, but rather a fulfillment of them. Faith, religion, and culture find their deepest meaning as they become a way to permit us to be bonded to God, the God of love and compassion, which give us the strength, the courage, and the wisdom to meet others who are different as persons. We can only become peacemakers if we believe that every person – whatever their culture, religion, values, abilities or disabilities – is important and precious to God and if we seek to open our hearts to them. Such encounters between people are deep, wonderful moments that seem to transcend time and space, religion and culture. They bring people together to a place of trust and mutual respect as they listen to one another and their sacred stories, not from the place of their own certitudes and ideologies, but from the place of inner silence. They imply a fundamental equality: no one person is superior to another. As we enter into this relationship together, we are opening our hearts to one another and somehow losing some of the things we want to possess in order to feel superior and to have power. Walls that separate culture, religion, social status, and people start to weaken in this gentle encounter.” (p.40)
Across unique and complex cultural realties, may our shared love for Christ remind us to speak the truth (not generalizations, assumptions, or unsubstantiated threats), cast out fear, and extend dignity and respect to all our neighbours.
Vanier says, “The world is divided into many thousands of more or less hermetically closed groups. If each group is sure that it is better than others, how can peace ever come? It is difficult to dialogue with others if we cling arrogantly to the idea that we are right or that our power and technology are a sign of our humanity and goodness. Walls and barriers exist between people because of language, but also because of fear – each group fearful of those who are different, fearful of losing its identity. People resist opening up to others. Aren’t we all in one way or another enclosed in a secure group, in our culture, our religion, our family, our network of friends? Family and different types of groups are needed for human growth, but when they become sealed they engender rivalry, conflict, elitism.” (p. 16 emphasis mine)
Last night I heard Oscar Muriu from Kenya speak at Urbana. He spoke about the incarnation and the movements that Christ embodied in this choice to enter our world vulnerably as a newborn child. The movements from pride to humility, from power to powerlessness, from position to poverty (and he had one more which I’m not recalling) are the incarnational postures to which we are called as those who seek to nurture shalom. Here was a passionate African leader challenging 16,000 students to lead the way through vibrant expressions of incarnational mission, to extend grace to the generation before them who made lots of mistakes but who did the best they knew how in obedience and faithfulness to Christ, and to lead by forging a new and radical path that refuses the way of empire, colonialism, power and money. How grateful I was, how hopeful I was to think about partnership and engagement with our African brothers and sisters who embrace and embody such incarnational paradigms.
I continue to have many questions about how to best engage the situation in Uganda. I am keenly aware of our tragic legacy of colonialism and the danger of imposing western culture into their unique context. One of my deepest personal core values is to not be patronizing in my engagement with others – but to extend honour and respect by experiencing mutuality with the expectation that there will always be opportunity to learn even as there is opportunity to offer personal experience. And I am concerned that I not speak into a global situation (of which I would be the first to say I have no first-hand experience) with an unconscious yet arrogant presumption. At the same time, have we not learned some things in the 40 plus years since Stonewall? Are there not some things that can and ought to be offered and shared in both a spirit of humility and the conviction of valuing the image of God and the belovedness of each glbt person?
As I have continued to ponder and pray, I continue to return to this idea that seems to be generating powerful fear behind the Ugandan legislation and broader misconceptions about glbt people. It is this idea that gay people are recruiting “our children”. It seems to me that this is one of the core drivers behind the perpetuation and justification of devaluing the lives of same-sex oriented individuals in not only Uganda, but many parts of the world.
As a mom, I well know, that if you want to see me turn from a meek & mild, gentle & nice woman to a ferocious mama bear in 3 seconds flat – then just threaten my children. The gloves are off, I don’t care who you are – I’ll take you out. If I am honest, I may not take the necessary time to investigate if the threat is real or fabricated – because in that moment all I care about is protecting my babies. And if I don’t have access to reliable information about the perceived threat, then I will likely be incapable of making clear decisions consistent with the universal core value of treating others as I would want to be treated. All of that goes out the window in light of my gut level passion to protect my children.
And it is this kind of fear-inducing, manipulation (often promoted in the name of Christ) to which I feel I must speak. I must speak because this whole notion of widespread recruiting of children by average gay people is not true. And because stirring up fear that turns one human being against another is completely inconsistent with the way of Jesus – who chose incarnation: humility, powerlessness & poverty.
It is a sad reality of human sexuality that older adults seduce the young. This is indisputable. But this is not a gay issue – this is a human issue.
And it is a tragic reality that sexual abuse can cause tremendous woundedness and confusion in victims. But it is not accurate to insinuate that all gay people should be viewed as offenders until proven innocent – anymore than it would be to insinuate that all straight people should be viewed as offenders until proven innocent.
And it is not accurate to insinuate that homosexuality can somehow be “caught”, that it will “spread”, or that extending dignity and respect to our gay neighbours will increase the prevalence of homosexuality among our youth. The question of causation is complex and currently inconclusive. So while there seems to be a unique combination of both nature and nurture factors impacting different people to different degrees, what we do know is that a homosexual orientation is not something chosen or simply adopted. (And really, given the climate in Uganda towards gay people – who in their right mind would choose that?)
The reality of an increase in same-sex sexual experimentation, particularly in our western context, is, in my opinion, an alarming one. In my understanding, it is alarming because it fosters an unhealthy promiscuity for which young people seem to be often oblivious to long-term consequences including the potential of confusion in one's experience of sexual identity. But such experimentation, I would suggest, is far more the result of our own consumeristic, lust-oriented, celebrity-fixated, individualistic culture than it is the fruit of extending fair and just treatment and hospitality to our gay neighbours.
So, as someone in the west who desires to humbly acknowledge that I do not fully understand all the complex cultural realities influencing attitudes about homosexuality in a context like Uganda, I do wish, as a follower of Jesus Christ who in serving gay people has experienced much heart change, to offer such distinctions on these matters as they impact our children.
It may be that you continue, on the basis of Scripture, to hold a theological perspective that homosexual behaviour is inconsistent with God’s guidelines for human sexuality. If you hold such convictions may it be not from fear, misinformation, or prejudice – but from prayerful, humble wrestling with Scripture. But let us, who name the name of Jesus, recognize that such conviction about God-honouring behaviour cannot negate the truth of God’s love for our gay neighbours and our responsibility as his followers to challenge fear-inducing misinformation that would oppress or marginalize.
Vanier: “This passage, this crossing over the barricades that separate cultures and religions, is not a rejection of one’s own faith, tradition, and culture, but rather a fulfillment of them. Faith, religion, and culture find their deepest meaning as they become a way to permit us to be bonded to God, the God of love and compassion, which give us the strength, the courage, and the wisdom to meet others who are different as persons. We can only become peacemakers if we believe that every person – whatever their culture, religion, values, abilities or disabilities – is important and precious to God and if we seek to open our hearts to them. Such encounters between people are deep, wonderful moments that seem to transcend time and space, religion and culture. They bring people together to a place of trust and mutual respect as they listen to one another and their sacred stories, not from the place of their own certitudes and ideologies, but from the place of inner silence. They imply a fundamental equality: no one person is superior to another. As we enter into this relationship together, we are opening our hearts to one another and somehow losing some of the things we want to possess in order to feel superior and to have power. Walls that separate culture, religion, social status, and people start to weaken in this gentle encounter.” (p.40)
Across unique and complex cultural realties, may our shared love for Christ remind us to speak the truth (not generalizations, assumptions, or unsubstantiated threats), cast out fear, and extend dignity and respect to all our neighbours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
