We hear it all the time, don't we?
"I love homosexuals ..... but....."
"I love gay people ..... but ...."
How is it that Christians truly demonstrate this love?
Tony Campolo challenges that "but" in unequivocal terms. Check out this clip:
What questions does this raise for you?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Yes, yes, and YES! Clearly Tony Campolo gets it and I for one am grateful for that fact.
Love is not some abstract concept that exists without actually interacting with those one supposedly loves. One can't even keep a "polite but distant" relationship with someone and still have love. Love is more real than that. Love is messier than that.
And ultimately, I think that's part of the problem. Some people just don't like to have to deal with the innate messiness of love. So they talk about how they love without actually demonstrating it through actions.
Again, I'm glad that people like Tony Campolo and you seem to understand this very well.
I see where Tony is coming from on this. He is challenging the Evangelical Community to think and engage deeper. Once again this is my perspective but I am not sure if the gay community is even interested in being "loved" by evangelicals considering their overall opinion. For example when folks like, even Tony Campolo refers to "same gendered erotic behavior" that alone will turn a lot off.
This statement, from a more moderate member of the evangelical community, still resonates that he only sees us based on a behavior or an act and not a person.Being gay is so much more than than the sex act. The fact that he chooses this language is a sample of the huge divide that will never be breached.
And what is so disheartening is that he is supposed to be the "more open minded" evangelicals. I DO believe that gays and lesbians would definitely appreciate respect and acknowledgement by evangelicals as whole persons that deserve the same legal rights as all americans.
As Gay Christian, let me say that I obviously don't believe scripture speaks specifically to same sex behavevior Quite honestly, to do so is quite ridiculous. Generally, I just feel that evangelicals need to deal with their own sin rather than worry about my "perceived sin".
Jack - having had the chance to talk with Tony at some length (more than a 3 min. clip), I know that he sees glbtq people as much more than their sexuality. But he finds himself, like many moderate Christian voices on this topic do, constantly having to clarify his position to be able to maintain some level of credibility so that people will actually listen long enough to be confronted with the challenge to love and justice that he presents. It isn't so much Tony's limitations as the limitations of the audience he is trying to address that I think you're picking up on. The only way to address these limitations is through education - and if people refuse to listen to you because they categorize you as having compromised - then you lose the opportunity to educate at all.
I don't understand how Tony's position works in the christian community. If he believes that same gendered erotic behaviour is wrong then he would have to deny the right of a gay person in a relationship to, for example, serve as an ordained minister, wouldn't he? (forgive my anonymous post but this is a 'live' issue for me).
Hi Anonymous (if you could even use a pseudonymn that will allow us to connect the various comments you might make to you),
I think there is a distinction between civil human rights and ministry vocation. I'm not sure that describing the opportunity to serve in an ordained position is a 'right'. Any given individual may say to the church, "I have a right to fill an ordained position" - and for any number of reasons the church may respond with a decision that the individual is not 'fit' to fill such a position.
So, in part I think it is 'apples and oranges'.
One can fully support civil rights for glbtq people on the basis of our shared dignity and value and equality as human beings, yet hold a theological position that would not open ordained offices to glbtq people in gay partnerships. This will be seen as an injustice by some and by others be seen as a decision made on the basis of conviction. In these situations, my prayer is that we can honour one another with mutuality, humility and grace.
Where Christians oppose civil human rights for glbtq people, I personally feel that needs to be challenged as inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I was anonymous but I'll call myself Bob (sorry couldn't think of anything clever!). Your reply would be how I see it 'theoretically' but I understand that a gay man who feels called to the ministry and is in a relationship would feel differently. The difficulty is that when a church is actually faced with this situation there seems to be no middle ground. Some in the church see the man to be not 'fit' to fill the position (putting it like that sounds awful but it is what it is) and so oppose it, but why should he wait for the rest to catch up (as he might see it) or allow their theology and reading of scripture to deny him his call. One might say that love on his part whould cause him to be patient with his sisters and brothers, but why? Shouldn't his brothers and sisters live with his supposed 'sin' because 'grace' is bigger. Having tried for years to keep dialogue open and take no clear stand that would alienate one part of the church, my denomination is currently tearing itself apart over this. I can see no way out or through.
Tony is a great thinker and challenger. While I disagree with his understanding of scripture (re: gay partnerships), I do applaud him for using his position to teach the "peaceable wisdom" of securing civil rights & privileges for all glbt persons.
On the question of openly gay, partnered persons pursuing a ministry vocation: I agree with Wendy that the church cannot view nor handle this a "right". But mostly that's because we can handle it as a "calling". Much prayer, bible study and counsel goes into the process of discerning what is termed a "call" to serve as a pastor. And that term says a lot about the idea that God will speak personally to a person about the matter. And so the question really is whether or not God would "call" an openly gay, partnered person to serve as a pastor. To answer Anonymous' question -- yes, TC's theology dictates that he would expect an openly gay, partnered person to perfunctorily avoid the discerning process and ignore a sense of God's call to the ministry. I respectfully but heartily disagree with that expectation.
Wendy,
You may very well know him but it does not change the fact that his audience will not have the benefit of knowing what you know. Sending inconsistent messages is a slippery slope. I mean whatever happened to standing up for what you believe in regardless of the audience?
By using terms such as "same gendered erotic behavior" sends the message that gays and lesbians should be perceived for a sexual act and not a whole person. HIS WORDS MATTER!! And those aren't the words that are going to build any bridges with anyone.
Finally, it seems to me that you folks at Bridging The Gap need to understand that there are more people watching your three minute videos other than Evangelicals. With that in mind, you should expect to leave the kind of immpressions that they do. The tricky thing about the internet is that everyone has access.
And with that access comes a variety of people listening and watching. And I cannot imagine that I am the only gay person having the same reaction to these videos. Just my two cents. :)
On an individual level and acquaintance/friend level: Love and Respect. Agreement isn't necessary for there to be love and respect and dignity. Why should it be so difficult to love and respect people just because they are people, regardless of anything beyond that? And not make it conditional upon the other party showing love and respect first?
On a corporate level: A non-same-sex-union-recognizing-church should retain its freedom in a same-sex-union-recognizing-state, and a same-sex-union-recognizing church should retain its freedom in a non-same-sex-union-recognizing state. Is that really impossible? Or just totally unpractical?
Hope I've not drifted from the thread of this discussion. Thanks.
Comments on these videos seem to be suggesting a problem of "intended audience" for such media to be effective. I keep thinking that The Gap we sense needs bridging might perhaps be more accurately described as The Gaps -- Christian to Non-Christian, Gay to Straight. And I keep thinking that perhaps it would be better if the people verbally bridging either of these Gaps were those that have a commonality with each side of the particular Gap.
IE:
Gay Christians explaining the personal value of Christ* and praying with Gay Non-Christians (fulfilling a much needed evangelical outreach).
Straight Christians openly conversing with Gay Christians about faith leading to healthy relationships and families** (fulfilling a deep fellowship need).
Straight Christians offering DEEDS more so than words in their relationships with Gay Non-Christians (showing generous agape love and solidarity in civil struggles).
*as distinguished from The Church
**as distinguished from political agendas
Boy, I'm sleepy out here in California -- does any of this make sense?
I've been following this with interest. Jack's comments are really appreciated by me. They cut through the c$*&, so to speak :)
Here's what I think. There are two communities with distinct identities, and each understandably needs to be true to themselves.
I'm no expert, but it seems like the gay community is about friendships, and sex, often but not always a shared experience of rejection by family and society. It's more than that though, it's become a community, you might say a family, of lives - lots of lives fitted and tangled up together. Sorry if this is inadequate. As I say, I'm no expert, but should probably be a bit more of a student.
On the other hand, the Church needs to find a way to be true to itself too. Part of the Church's identity is shaped by the ethical injunctions of the Bible. While the discussion of what the Bible says and means always has to go on, those parts of the Bible which point out as sin "same gendered erotic behavior", as TC puts it, aren't going to go away any time soon.
The thing is though, and this is what TC is getting at, I think, those above mentioned parts of the Bible are only part of the Church's identity. Just as much part of the Church's identity, which it gets from Jesus and the Bible is the command to live with and love all people.
Seithman is right in that this loving is messy, and it's messy because both this sexual ethical aspect and the command to go love others as you yourself would be loved, are part of the Church's identity.
I think these two aspects are especially difficult for the Church to live with because they are being held at a time of significant cultural change. As gay liberation has occurred, the Church has unwittingly found itself the defender of a social conservatism rather than someone sharing the Christian Gospel. It's found itself repeatedly saying 'no' rather than offering eternal life - which should be a positive thing! It's found itself defending the first part of the Christian identity sketched above but forgetting the second. I think this is really bad ...
There is a massive gap between these two communities. Understanding, recognizing and respecting each other would be a start.
I can't see how the two communities can simply become one. For obvious reasons, important parts of the identity of the communities are incompatible.
But, I don't see why they shouldn't learn to live with one another, intermingled, so to speak but not mixed into one.
Each group will have a recognized core of people who accept the unique markers of that group.
However, people have different types of relationships with different people. We do it all the time. We have family, sexual, work, casual relationships. Different types of relationships come with different expected behaviours. I don't treat my boss like my girlfriend ... A conservative church member could have a friend in the gay community who is as close as family - or even is. This may be awkward, but I think a lot of the heat might lift from the situation if we just recognized and validated (a Marin expression I think) each other's communities. Part of that recognition and validation would be the giving of gay rights ... the right to organize their own community and live their own lives in their own way. And, in response to Bob, I guess it would also mean allowing the Church to organize its own house according to its own rules.
I think I've rambled enough. If this just doesn't work, I'd like to hear.
In response to Matt, it is a lot messier than that I think. The gay community/family doesn't include all gay people - specifically (some) Gay christians who hold to a celibate lifestyle would not feel part of the gay community. On the otherhand there are some who inhabit both worlds/communities/families - specifically those Gay christians who are in/open to same sex relationships.
The church should not presume to tell the gay community how to live(except in the way that it might speak to any community) although christians who are part of the gay community may feel that they have a right/duty to be a prophetic voice in that community. Other than that the christian call is to witness to the love of God in deed and word.
The gay community however is part of the church in that there are gay christains who are in/open to same sex relationships and believe that that is not incompatable with following Christ.
When denise talks about the different gaps she misses out a crucial one which is the gap between christians of different theologies. It isn't a matter of gay and straight christians having a gap between them but a matter of gay and straight christians who believe that same sex relationships are compatable with following Christ and gay and straight christians who think they aren't. It is when the church is forced to make a choice over these two theologies (for example over the issue of ordination) that the church tears itself apart and the gay community looks and says 'I'm keeping far away from them'!
How do you bridge that gap? Dialogue brings no resolution. It might change some people's minds one way or another, but when a decission is asked for we can't find middle ground. Where is the middle ground between, 'I'm called to the ministry and I'm living with my same sex partner' and 'if you're called to the minstry you can't live with your same sex partner'.
On the issue of calling rather than speaking about rights, thank you for pointing that out denise. A calling though is always a community thing and never an individual's own calling outwith that context, and though we are called as we are we are called not to stay as we are. A more conservative point of view would accept that a person in a same sex relationship might have a call on them to the ministry but they would see that as involving a call to celibacy (not unlike the catholic church does with all it's priests - but there's a whole can of worms there so don't push the similarity to far). All calls to ministry (or otherwise) involve some form of 'giving up' - the question is, is this a legitimate thing to ask someone to give up - the person they love!
Jack: I get what you're saying, and I certainly share your feelings to a certain degree. I've often seen what I personally consider poor word choices when various conservative/Side A (or is it Side B? I always get it confused) Christians discuss this topic.
Having said this, I do think it's important to cut Tony and others a certain amount of slack. As Wendy pointed out, this clip is from a video that is geared towards challenging conservative Christians about the importance of engaging and loving gay people. That does mean sometimes the wording is going to cause those of us in the gay community to bristle. The thing to remember is that when Wendy (and presumably Tony) are engaging gay people in a dialogue more directly, she tends to say things that occasionally make some conservative Christians bristle too. I think it's essential to the dialogue process to accept this fact and try to maintain a certain amount of grace about it all.
I also think it's important to keep in mind that in any dialogue, it's equally important to exercise proper listening skills. As someone who has been through seminars on good communication skills, I'd point out that part of good listening skills includes being open to the possibility that one has misunderstood the message that a speaker intended to convey. This means that the listener should actively participate in the dialogue by asking clarifying questions and patiently explaining what they think the speaker is trying to say so the speaker can clarify or correct any misunderstandings. I think it's far too easy to forget this essential aspect of the dialogue process and expect the speaker to do all the work. The thing is, that's not a reasonable expectation.
I also think it's important to keep this in mind when discussing this topic, given the immense amounts of distrust and "bad blood" on both sides. Anyone willing to participate in this discussion is really sticking their neck out there. And I think as active partners in the dialogue, we need to be careful that we don't become so critical of the missteps that any given speaker begins to wonder whether it's worth it to even try.
In closing, I'd like to offer a suggestion to Wendy and others for consideration. I think that part of the problem right now is that there seems to be a primary focus on discussing why this issue is so vital and why conservative Christians should get involved in the dialogue. It may be time to start thinking about speaking more towards gay people.
One thing that may help with that is to work on a second video, this one more geared towards gay audiences. If and when Wendy is willing to take on such a project, I'd be more than happy to put in some time and offer any feedback I might have on the process. Perhaps Jack and a couple other people might also be willing to offer their input on what would make such a video project more appealing to gay people.
-- Jarred.
Matt: You raise a lot of great points and I think much of what you suggest is spot on.
I will note that I don't think anyone is expecting the gay and Christian communities to join together and become a single community. Truth be told, each of those communities aren't even a single, unified community on their own! The simple fact is that not everyone will get along or be bossom buddies. And that's actually okay.
What I'm personally more concerned about (and I suspect others would say the same thing) is that people from the two (non-)communities are not separated by a mountain range or a political border. I'm a gay man who has coworkers, neighbors, and family members who are conservative Christians. It's important to me that I can live and work peacefully, comfortably, and amenably with them, because the circumstances of our lives make it necessary. The other option is total isolation within our own groups (and some gay people and Christians alike have moved in that direction for various reasons), but that's not always feasible. I'm also convinced it's neither desirable nor ultimately healthy.
So yeah, I"m not looking for "let's all be one happy family and sing kum-ba-ya together." But if we can get along together in our daily lives and even help out each other when need arises, then I'll be ecstatic.
-- Jarred.
Denise:
You're absolutely right about there being multiple gaps to be bridged. I also think there is something to be said for your idea that those with common ground should try bridging a particular gap. However, I would like to point out a couple things about your ideas.
What you are suggesting seems one sided. You have straight people ministering to gay people and Christians ministering to non-Christians. For such bridge-building to work, I believe that one must be open to the possibility of non-Christians ministering to Christians and gay people ministering to straight people as well. Otherwise, there's no mutual benefit/edification. Without that, the relationships built will be poor at best.
The other thing I'd note is that part of the bridge-building process is that people on each side need to learn about the others' need. There's a certain sense in your suggestions (and that may be unintentional and I"m misreading you) that you already have this idea of what each of those people need. This can be a real problem. It's better to find out from the person what they say they need. I personally don't feel I need Christ right now, but I may need someone to listen to me as I fret about a recent fight with my boyfriend.
As an example, I'd like to share a personal anecdote of one of the most memorable moments of my life. While I was in college, I had a friend named Kahtryn. She started her freshman year the same time I started my senior year. When we met, I was still a Christian and trying to turn myself straight. By the end of my senior year, I finally came out as gay.
Now you have to understand that in my circle of friends, Kathryn was probably the most conservative Christian and could (in the rest of our opinions at least) be pretty darn uptight. She'd object to the risqué jokes the rest of us would occasionally tell and often came off as prudish and a little moralistic.
Kathryn surprised me a year later. One weekend, I came back to campus to visit old friends who hadn't graduated. Toward the end of my visit, I decided to stop in and pay Kathryn and a few other friends a visit. After about half an hour of sitting together in her room and chatting, she suddenly asked, "So, do you have a boyfriend?" I was floored. Kathryn was the last person I would have ever expected to ask me that question. Not only that, but she asked it in a way that made it clear she was sincerely interested and cared about my happiness -- even if she didn't care for the fact that I dated guys instead of girls. Her tone was casual and conversational. And that question and the honest care behind it has been one of the most surprising and memorable gifts anyone has ever given me.
By the way, Kathryn and I are still friends. She's actually married to Tim, who graduated with me, and they have two children. We still talk and I"m hoping to visit them in the near future. A big reason why that is is because Kathryn has demonstrated the ability to ask such a simple question like "do you have a boyfriend?"
Just food for thought.
By the way, I"m the same Jarred who usually posts under the name seithman. For some reason, I can't use typepad to leave comments this morning. Typepad seems to be having issues with their OpenID server support.
Bob,
This probably won't be helpful (!) but I'll say it anyway.
I have a hunch that part of the issue about the gap between Christians of different theologies is driven by some of the dynamics I sketched.
What I mean, is that the Church's lack of engagement with the gay community, conceived of as broadly as possible, and its role as a defender of conservative cultural values has created a vacuum.
Current attempts to redefine Christian sexual ethics are driven in part (I know some will see this as infuriatingly patronising) by the fact that the (conservative) Church appears to have nothing positive to say to the gay community (I exaggerate, but I'm sure everyone knows what I'm talking about).
There is an issue of injustice in the way the Church has ignored this issue and, from one perspective, I find it understandable that different theologies have arisen to address that injustice.
In other words, from my point of view - a relatively conservative Christian one - find meaningful ways for members of the gay community to be part of the Church, find a positive spirituality of which it might mean to be celibate, and I suspect that some of demand for doctrinal revisionism will fall away. I think a partial answer to Bob's problem (I know this can't solve the immediate issue you face) is, to use the jargon, 'mission'.
Please note, I'm not demanding anyone be celibate, or expecting anyone to say 'yippee, let me in'. The Church living with and loving people should not in anyway be conditional on anyone's signing up to the Church's pattern - it's all entirely voluntary.
Nor am I saying I know how to do this, or what this 'positive spirituality' looks like.
I'm just outlining the really obvious point about the identity of the (conservative) Church and asking what it might mean for "Bob's gap" if more members of the gay community entered the church and signed up to its pattern of life.
I know, I know, I'm just dreaming.
Jarred -- I agree my post was onesided in terms of relational dynamics. And your thoughts about healthy dialogue and a simple wish for communities to get along nicely if not in totally harmony is well taken. To be more thorough about bridging gaps, I would definitely hope for and expect friendships between gay non-Christians and gay Christians to be mutually loving and supportive along certain lines. We know that Christ accepted love and tenderness from those he was sent to save.
Your conservative Christian friend Kathryn chose very wisely, positioning herself to learn something important about you as a gay man. Thanks for sharing that...I think narratives like this should be documented somehow and shared more broadly -- underscoring your suggestion that books and videos cast more gay people sharing ideas and experiences.
Here is a great interview with Tony Campolo: http://www.hopeandhealing.org/contentPage.aspx?resource_id=320
Tony Campolo is someone who has spoken eloquently and appropriately about Christian love in other contexts. And it is certainly needed in the context of how Christians view homosexuals. But in this video clip Tony stereotypes a fellow-Christian apparently on the basis of a single remark. Then he goes on to say we should show love by willing for homosexuals the same rights as the rest have. This leaves enormous questions. Does this mean all the rights homosedxuals claim? Does he think we should will their:
--right to marry and have those unions recognized by the state?
--right to adopt children?
--right to have children by artificial insemination?
--the right to have public schools teach that same-sex "marriage" where it exists is equivalent to traditional marriage?
Note where these rights affect children. Does Tony Campolo's exhortation to love extend to showing love to children, and doesn't caring about what they are taught have something to do with loving children?
So far on "Bridging the Gap" I have seen no uderstanding of the issue of homosexuality as it affects education. See www.bcptl.org re this issue as it is playing out in Canada.
Post a Comment